A Novel Simulator for Teaching Endobronchial Ultrasound–guided Needle Biopsy

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) has become standard for the diagnosis of lung cancer, and there is an increasing need for procedural competence in trainees. We evaluate a low-cost, gelatin-based EBUS-TBNA training simulator to assess pulmonary fellows' baseline skills and facilitate procedural development. METHODS: A low-cost ($30) gelatin-based, high-fidelity simulator was created to represent the airways, major vessels, and lymph node stations essential to identify for EBUS-TBNA. Trainees had a baseline skills assessment using the simulator and were then provided a 1-hour didactic session on EBUS-TBNA and additional practice time with the simulator. Trainees then underwent a postsimulation skills assessment using a modified endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-Skills and Tasks Assessment Tool (STAT) performance assessment tool. Simulator fidelity and trainee procedural confidence was assessed using a 10-point scale. RESULTS: Ten fellows received training on the EBUS-TBNA simulator. First-year trainees scored the lowest on the 18-point performance scale with a mean score of 9, while third-year trainees scored highest with a mean score of 17.5. Mean 18-point performance score improvement after simulator training and didactics was 4.31 points for all trainees with the largest change in first-year trainees amounting to 8.25 points. First-year trainees experienced the greatest improvement in EBUS procedural confidence by a mean of 2.5 points on a 10-point confidence survey. CONCLUSION: A low-cost EBUS simulator effectively differentiated early and advanced learners based on graded procedural performance scores. Simulation-based practice significantly improved learners' procedural performance, and the degree of improvement correlated with learner inexperience. The simulation significantly increased early learner confidence in EBUS-TBNA technique.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.