Search

Background: A considerable number of surgical residents fail the mandated endoscopy exam despite having completed the required clinical cases. Low-cost endoscopy box trainers (BTs) could democratize training; however, their effectiveness has never been compared with higher-cost virtual reality simulators (VRSs)., Study Design: In this randomized noninferiority trial, endoscopy novices trained either on the VRS used in the Fundamental of Endoscopic Surgery manual skills (FESms) exam or a validated BT-the Basic Endoscopic Skills Training (BEST) box. Trainees were tested at fixed timepoints on the FESms and on standardized ex vivo models. The primary endpoint was FESms improvement at 1 week. Secondary endpoints were FESms improvement at 2 weeks, FESms pass rates, ex vivo tests performance, and trainees' feedback., Results: Seventy-seven trainees completed the study. VRS and BT trainees showed comparable FESms improvements (25.16 ± 14.29 vs 25.58 ± 11.75 FESms points, respectively; p = 0.89), FESms pass rates (76.32% vs 61.54%, respectively; p = 0.16) and total ex vivo tasks completion times (365.76 ± 237.56 vs 322.68 ± 186.04 seconds, respectively; p = 0.55) after 1 week. Performances were comparable also after 2 weeks of training, but FESms pass rates increased significantly only in the first week. Trainees were significantly more satisfied with the BT platform (3.97 ± 1.20 vs 4.81 ± 0.40 points on a 5-point Likert scale for the VRS and the BT, respectively; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Simulation-based training is an effective means to develop competency in endoscopy, especially at the beginning of the learning curve. Low-cost BTs like the BEST box compare well with high-tech VRSs and could help democratize endoscopy training., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acute cholecystitis in nonsurgical candidates is often managed with cholecystostomy tube drainage. After symptom resolution, management options include cholecystectomy, long-term tube drainage, or tube removal. Percutaneous cholecystolithotomy (PCCL) can offer another therapeutic option for patients who are poor operative candidates., Study Design: A retrospective study of PCCL performed between December 2000 and September 2017 was conducted. Demographic characteristics, procedure details, gallstone-related complications, procedure-related complications, readmission, and mortality data were collected., Results: Seventy-five patients were identified (52.0% male, 48.0% female, mean ± SD age 75.6 ± 13.9 years). Mean ± SD follow-up time was 2.8 ± 3.7 years. Most of the patients (90.7%) had an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification of 3 or 4. Eleven patients (14.7%) had failed earlier cholecystectomy. A total of 96 PCCL procedures were performed, and complete gallstone removal was achieved in 68 of 75 patients (90.7%), including all patients with previously aborted cholecystectomy. The 30-day and 90-day readmission rates were 4% and 8%, respectively. Three patients (3.9%) subsequently underwent cholecystectomy after PCCL. Ten (10.4%) procedure-related complications (Clavien-Dindo grade I and II) and 17 (22.7%) gallstone-related complications occurred during the follow-up period. Postprocedural choledocholithiasis occurred in 6 patients (8.0%). Recurrent gallstones developed in 5 patients (6.3%) (3 patients undergoing cholecystectomy and 2 patients treated with cholecystostomy tube)., Conclusions: PCCL is a viable option for management of symptomatic gallbladder stones in high-risk surgical patients. There is a high technical success rate, even in patients with earlier failed cholecystectomy. Most patients (77.3%) avoided gallstone-related complications after the procedure., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)