Fundamentals Of Endoscopic Surgery Research Articles

Current status of resident simulation training curricula: pearls and pitfalls.

Residency programs are required to incorporate simulation into their training program. Ideally, simulation provides a safe environment for a trainee to be exposed to both common and challenging clinical scenarios. The purpose of this review is to detail the current state of the most commonly used laparoscopic, endoscopic, and robotic surgery simulation programs in general surgery residency education, including resources required for successful implementation and benchmarks for evaluation. Members of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Resident and Fellow Task Force (RAFT) Committee performed a literature review using PubMed and training websites. Information regarding the components of the most commonly used laparoscopic, endoscopic, and/or robotic simulation curriculum, including both formal and informal benchmarks for evaluating training competence, were collected. Laparoscopic simulation revolves around the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS). Proficiency-based as well as virtual simulation have been utilized for FLS training curricula. Challenges include less direct translation to the technical complexities that can arise in laparoscopic surgery. Endoscopic simulation focuses on the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery. There are virtual reality simulation platforms that can be used for skills assessment and training. Challenges include simulator types and access, as well as structured mentoring and feedback. Robotic simulation training curricula have not been standardized. Simulation includes one primary technology, which can be prohibitive based on cost and requirements for onboarding. While surgical simulation seems to be a fundamental and integrated part of surgical training, it requires a significant number of resources, which can be daunting for residency training programs. Regardless of the barriers outlined, the need for surgical simulation in laparoscopy, endoscopy, and robotics at surgical education training programs is clear.

Optimal Timing of Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) Testing in General Surgery Residency: Early Is Better

BackgroundFundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) completion is mandatory for certification by the American Board of Surgery (ABS). As early simulation and competency assessment can bolster development of trainee proficiency, we sought to determine the optimal timing for FES examination by evaluating pass rates based on training level and previous endoscopic experience. MethodsPGY2-5 residents at a university-based medical center who were novice to FES were assigned to complete FES training and testing. Training year, prior endoscopic experience, and FES exam scores were recorded with pre- and post-test surveys. ResultsMost residents in the program (88%) were able to complete FES training and testing within a single academic year. Most required only a single faculty-led session (88%) to feel confident to take the exam, augmented by varying numbers of independent practice sessions (50% 1–2, 19% 3–5, 27% > 5). After training, most (84%) felt confident that they would pass the exam, and 93% did so on their first attempt. While higher written exam scores were noted in the PGY5 group, there were no other statistically significant differences in overall pass rates or technical exam scores based on PGY level (p = 0.24). A number of previously completed endoscopic cases did not correlate with exam scores (p = 0.24 written, p = 0.91 technical). ConclusionFundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) certification can be successfully completed by junior level general surgery residents regardless of previous endoscopic experience. Moving this exam to earlier training years can benefit resident development and preparedness in the clinical setting without negatively impacting pass rates.

The American Board of Surgery flexible endoscopy curriculum prepares individuals to pass the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery manual skills test.

The American Board of Surgery (ABS) has required Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) certification for general surgery applicants since 2018. Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum (FEC) completion is recommended prior to taking the FES exam. The objective of the study was to determine if FEC completion prepares individuals to pass the FES manual skills test. Participants included first-attempt FES examinees from June 2014 to February 2019. De-identified data were reviewed, Self-reported data included gender, PGY, glove size, upper (UE) and lower (LE) endoscopy experience, simulation training time, and participation in an endoscopy rotation (ER). FES skills exam performance was reported by FES staff. Those completing all vs. none of the FEC were compared. Of 2023 participants identified, 809 (40.0%) reported completion of all FEC components, 1053 (52.1%) completed of some, and 161 (8.0%) completed none. Men and candidates taking FES later in residency were more likely to complete all FEC requirements (p = 0.002, p < 0.001). FES pass rates were higher for those who completed all FEC components compared to those who completed none (88.4% vs 72.7%, p < 0.001). On logistic regression analysis, completion of all components (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.5-3.7, p < 0.001) and male gender (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.7-5.7, p < 0.001) were predictors of passing, while glove size (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.5, p = 0.08), simulator time (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.4, p = 0.37) and PGY were not (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.4, p = 0.38). On multivariate analysis controlling for glove size and gender, completion of all FEC components was still associated with a higher likelihood of passing the FES skills exam (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1, p < 0.001). Completion of FEC is strongly associated with passing the FES skills test. This study supports the ABS recommendation for completion of FEC prior to taking the FES skills test.

"Into the fire" approach to teaching endoscopic foreign body removal using a modular simulation curriculum.

As flexible endoscopy becomes an increasingly valuable minimally invasive approach to surgical challenges, an efficient and comprehensive training curriculum is needed to train surgeons in therapeutic endoscopy. We developed a modular curriculum utilizing a simulation-based, "into the fire" approach to endoscopic foreign body removal for practicing physicians with task performance pre- and post-testing. From 2020 to 2021, two sessions of our advanced flexible endoscopy course were taught by two expert surgical endoscopists using ex-vivo porcine models. The course focused on safe removal techniques for various foreign bodies as part of an overall endoscopy curriculum that uses hands-on simulation-based pre-testing, didactics, and mentored practice sessions, followed by post-course examination. Pre- and post-course assessments and surveys were used to evaluate knowledge, performance, and confidence of participants, and subsequently analyzed using the Wilcoxon-signed rank test. Of the 16 practicing physicians who participated in the course, 43.8% were certified in Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery, and 62.5% had completed > 200 prior upper endoscopies. Upon course completion, scoring on knowledge-based written examinations improved from 3.4 ± 1.9 to 5.8 ± 2.0 (p < 0.001). Technical facility of each participant demonstrated significant overall improvement with post-course score increased from 15.8 ± 2.5 to 23.6 ± 1.6 (p < 0.001), with skill refinement noted in technical subcategories of appropriate instrument use (p < 0.001), foreign body manipulation (p < 0.001), and successful foreign body removal (p < 0.001). Confidence surveys likewise demonstrated significant increase in confidence after completion of the curriculum 11.6 ± 3.4 to 23.0 ± 5.5 (p < 0.001). The "into the fire" approach to teaching endoscopic foreign body removal utilizing our simulation module provides an effective curriculum to improve knowledge, confidence, and overall technical performance. Our methodology utilizes hands-on, simulation-based pre-testing prior to instruction. This introduces clinical scenarios and technical challenges, while accounting for and tailoring to provider-specific variation in knowledge and experience, facilitating training efficiency.

Transfer of virtual reality endoscopy training to live animal colonoscopy: a randomized control trial of proficiency vs. repetition-based training.

BackgroundLow first-time pass rates of the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) exam stimulated development of virtual reality (VR) simulation curricula for test preparation. This study evaluates the transfer of VR endoscopy training to live porcine endoscopy performance and compares the relative effectiveness of a proficiency-based vs repetition-based VR training curriculum.MethodsNovice endoscopists completed pretesting including the FES manual skills examination and Global Assessment of GI Endoscopic Skills (GAGES) assessment of porcine upper and lower endoscopy. Participants were randomly assigned one of two curricula: proficiency-based or repetition-based. Following curriculum completion, participants post-tested via repeat FES examination and GAGES porcine endoscopy assessments. The two cohorts pre-to-post-test differences were compared using ANCOVA.ResultsTwenty-two residents completed the curricula. There were no differences in demographics or clinical endoscopy experience between the groups. The repetition group spent significantly more time on the simulator (repetition: 242.2 min, SD 48.6) compared to the proficiency group (proficiency: 170.0 min, SD 66.3; p = 0.013). There was a significant improvement in porcine endoscopy (pre: 10.6, SD 2.8, post: 16.6, SD 3.4; p < 0.001) and colonoscopy (pre: 10.4, SD 2.7, post: 16.4, SD 4.2; p < 0.001) GAGES scores as well as FES manual skills performance (pre: 270.9, SD 105.5, post: 477.4, SD 68.9; p < 0.001) for the total cohort. There was no difference in post-test GAGES performance or FES manual skills exam performance between the two groups. Both the proficiency and repetition group had a 100% pass rate on the FES skills exam following VR curriculum completion.ConclusionA VR endoscopy curriculum translates to improved performance in upper and lower endoscopy in a live animal model. VR curricula type did not affect FES manual skills examination or live colonoscopy outcomes; however, a proficiency curriculum is less time-consuming and can provide a structured approach to prepare for both the FES exam and clinical endoscopy.

A modular simulation curriculum to teach endoscopic stenting to practicing surgeons: an "Into the fire" approach.

Flexible endoscopy is a valuable tool for the gastrointestinal (GI) surgeon, creating a need for effective and efficient training curricula in therapeutic endoscopic techniques for trainees and practicing providers. Here, we present a simulation-based modular curriculum using an "into the fire" approach with hands-on pre- and post-testing to teach endoscopic stenting to practicing surgeons. Three advanced flexible endoscopy courses were taught by expert surgical endoscopists from 2018 to 2019. The stenting module involved using self-expandable metal stents to manage simulated esophageal and gastroduodenal strictures on a non-tissue GI model. Based on the educational theories of inquiry-based learning, the simulation curriculum was designed with a series of pre-tests, didactics, mentored hands-on instructions, and post-tests. Assessments included a confidence survey, knowledge-based written test, and evaluation form specific to the hands-on performance of endoscopic stenting. Twenty-eight practicing surgeons with varying endoscopic experiences participated in the course. Most of the participants (67.9%) had completed over 100 upper endoscopic procedures and 57.1% were certified in Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery. After completing the modular curriculum, participant confidence survey scores improved from 11.4 ± 4.2 to 20.7 ± 4.0 (p < 0.001). Knowledge-based written test scores also improved from 7.1 ± 1.2 to 8.4 ± 0.9 (p < 0.001). In terms of technical performance, overall hands-on performance scores improved from 21.3 ± 2.7 to 28.9 ± 1.2 (p < 0.001) with significant improvement in each individual component of the assessment (all p values < 0.01) and the greatest improvement seen in equipment handling (88%) and flow of procedure (54%). Our modular simulation curriculum using an "into the fire" approach to teach endoscopic stenting is effective in improving learner knowledge, confidence, and hands-on performance of endoscopic stenting. This approach to simulation is effective, efficient, and adaptable to teaching practicing surgeons with varying levels of experience.

Resident Endoscopy Experience Correlates Poorly with Performance on a Virtual Reality Simulator.

Background Endoscopy training has become increasingly emphasized during general surgery residency as reflected by introduction of the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) examination, which includes testing of skills on virtual reality (VR) simulators. Although studies exist to assess the ability of the simulator to differentiate between novices and experienced endoscopists, it is not well understood how simulators can differentiate skills among resident cohort. Objective To assess the utility of the VR simulator, we evaluated the correlation between resident endoscopy experience and performance on two VR simulator colonoscopy modules on the GI-BRONCH Mentor (Simbionix Ltd, Airport City, Israel). Methods Postgraduate years 2 to 5 residents completed “easy” and “difficult” VR colonoscopies, and performance metrics were recorded from October 2017 to February 2018 at Rutgers' two general surgery residency programs. Resident endoscopy experience was obtained through Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs. Correlations between resident endoscopy experience and VR colonoscopy performance metrics were assessed using Spearman's rho (ρ) correlation statistic and bivariate logistic regression. Results Fifty-five residents out of 65 (84.6%) eligible participants completed the study. There were limited correlations found between resident endoscopy experience and FES performance metrics and no correlations were found between resident endoscopy experience and binary metrics of colonoscopy—ability to complete colonoscopy, ability to retroflex, and withdrawal time of less than 6 minutes. Conclusion The VR simulator may have a limited ability to discriminate between experience levels among resident cohort. Future studies are needed to further understand how well the VR simulator metrics correlate with resident endoscopy experience.

Validity Evidence for Vascular Skills Assessment: The Feasibility of Fundamentals of Vascular Surgery in General Surgery Residency

As the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) and Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) have been used for general surgery assessment, the Fundamentals of Vascular Surgery (FVS) has recently been developed to evaluate core operative skills for vascular trainees. This study examines the 3 year implementation of FVS for general surgery residents and it gathers validity evidence using Messick's framework. We hypothesized that the curriculum and assessment tool enhance general surgery resident training and assessment. This is a retrospective review of FVS assessments of residents using descriptive and multivariate analyses. This study was conducted at an academic institution, where simulation-based teaching sessions occur in coordination between the general surgery and the integrated vascular surgery residency programs. Seventeen general surgery residents were assessed in FVS skills by an expert rater from 2018 to 2020. Overall, 86 assessments were completed. Assessment focuses on 3 open vascular skills (End-to-Side Anastomosis, Patch Angioplasty and Clockface Suturing). Response Process: 7 items comprise a graded rating for a skills score. Additionally, a global summary score is designated. Internal Structure: The assessment tool has a Cronbach's alpha of 0.87, demonstrating good internal consistency. Addition of the second rater correlated with Cohen's kappa -0.69 (p < 0.001), indicating poor interrater reliability. Relationships to other variables: The most significant improvement occurred in total scores between PGY2s (17.4 ± 2.37) and PGY4s (23.2 ± 3.00), p < 0.001, indicating adequate level discernment. The validity evidence of FVS assessment in this study supports its use in general surgery residency at a time when opportunities for open vascular skills assessment may be decreasing due to case availability and shifting paradigms. Further study into quality rater training is needed to optimize national implementation of FVS and ensure consistency in grading.

Simulation-Based Mastery Learning With Virtual Coaching: Experience in Training Standardized Upper Endoscopy to Novice Endoscopists

Simulation-Based Mastery Learning With Virtual Coaching: Experience in Training Standardized Upper Endoscopy to Novice Endoscopists

Use of Simulation in Plastic Surgery Training.

The nationwide focus on patient safety and the health of residents has increased the demand for educational tools outside the operating room. Simulation is a valuable tool for assessing and developing surgical skills in a controlled and safe environment. The use of simulation as a formal component of training has been increasing in various surgical subspecialties. In general surgery, simulation examinations such as the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery and Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery have become a prerequisite to board certification. Although formal simulation examinations in plastic surgery are not universal, there has been an increase in the use of simulation to increase resident competency in the operating room. For now, we will review the current state of simulation in craniofacial, hand, microvascular, and esthetic surgery and discuss applications for the future. We will also discuss the evolving role of artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and augmented reality in plastic surgery training and testing.

Fact or Fiction? Practice on a Simulator is Not Required to Pass the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES)TM Skills Exam

Initial work on the validity evidence used to support the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) performance exam as a measure of technical competency showed a strong relationship to clinical experience. Despite this evidence, there is a perception among some program directors that the exam cannot be successfully passed without practice on a simulator. We assess the validity of this perception. Deidentified data from the initial FES skills examination (prior to the 2014 FEC requirement) was reviewed, and 335 unique participants with reported simulation experience demographics were identified. Self reported data analyzed included gender, total clinical endoscopy procedure experience (1-150, 151-300, >300), and endoscopy simulator training hours (0, 1-5, 6-10, 11-20, >20). Final FES skills exam scores, and pass/fail designations for each participant were reported by the FES program staff. Continuous variables were compared between groups using one-way analysis of variance with post-hoc analysis where appropriate. Categorical variables were compared using Pearson Chi-Squared. The effect of variables on pass rate was assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Simulation training experience (SE) was categorically reported in hours(n,%): 0 (98, 29%), 1-5 (135, 40%), 6-10 (52, 16%), 11-20 (24, 7%), and >20 (26, 8%). Clinical endoscopy experience (CE), reported categorically as total cases performed (n,%), was available for 323 of 355 identified participants: 1-150 (126, 39%), 151-300 (99, 31%), >300 (98, 30%). There was no statistically discernible differences in mean FES total or task scores across the SE groups (total score 0:72 ± 15, 1-5:72 ± 13, 6-10:71 ± 14, 11-20:71 ± 16, 20:78 ± 13; p = 0.28), while both total score and task scores were discernibly higher in the more experienced CE groups (>151) compared to the least experienced group (total score; <150:67 ± 15, 151-300:75 ± 1, >300:77 ± 14; p < 0.01). Similarly, there was no statistically discernible difference in FES skills exam pass rates between SE groups (0: 80%, 1-5: 82%, 6-10: 79%, 11-20: 75%, >20: 85%; x2 = 2.5, p = 0.6), but there was a strong relationship between clinical experience and pass rate (<150: 70%, 151-300: 87%, >300: 89%; x2 = 15.8, p < 0.001). Finally, on both univariate and multivariate logistic regression, CE remained a discernible predictor of passing, even when controlling for SE (odds ratio = 2, 95% confidence interval 1.4-2.9, p < 0.001). FES skills examination data collected on participants completing the examination before the FEC requirement shows no demonstrable relationship with self-reported training experience on a simulator but confirms a strong relationship with clinical endoscopy experience. This lends further evidence to the validity of the FES exam as a marker of clinical endoscopic skill.

The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) skills test: factors associated with first-attempt scores and pass rate.

The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) program became required for American Board of Surgery certification as part of the Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum (FEC) for residents graduating in 2018. This study expands prior psychometric investigation of the FES skills test. We analyzed de-identified first-attempt skills test scores and self-reported demographic characteristics of 2023 general surgery residents who were required to pass FES. The overall pass rate was 83%. "Loop Reduction" was the most difficult sub-task. Subtasks related to one another only modestly (Spearman's ρ ranging from 0.11 to 0.42; coefficient α = .55). Both upper and lower endoscopic procedural experience had modest positive association with scores (ρ = 0.14 and 0.15) and passing. Examinees who tested on the GI Mentor Express simulator had lower total scores and a lower pass rate than those tested on the GI Mentor II (pass rates = 73% vs. 85%). Removing an Express-specific scoring rule that had been applied eliminated these differences. Gender, glove size, and height were closely related. Women scored lower than men (408- vs. 489-point averages) and had a lower first-attempt pass rate (71% vs. 92%). Glove size correlated positively with score (ρ = 0.31) and pass rate. Finally, height correlated positively with score (r = 0.27) and pass rate. Statistically controlling for glove size and height did not eliminate gender differences, with men still having 3.2 times greater odds of passing. FES skills test scores show both consistencies with the assessment's validity argument and several remarkable findings. Subtasks reflect distinct skills, so passing standards should perhaps be set for each subtask. The Express simulator-specific scoring penalty should be removed. Differences seen by gender are concerning. We argue those differences do not reflect measurement bias, but rather highlight equity concerns in surgical technology, training, and practice.

Commentary on Lineberry et al., The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) skills test: factors associated with first-attempt scores and pass rate.

Commentary on Lineberry et al., The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) skills test: factors associated with first-attempt scores and pass rate.

Practical Techniques to Adapt Surgical Resident Education to the COVID-19 Era.

Practical Techniques to Adapt Surgical Resident Education to the COVID-19 Era.

Fabrication and Validation of a Cost-Effective Upper Endoscopy Simulator.

Purpose:Beginning with the graduating class of 2018, the American Board of Surgery (ABS) requires that residents complete the ABS Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum, Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES). This curriculum includes both didactic and simulator training. In the ideal setting residents gain proficiency using simulation prior to performing endoscopies in the clinical setting. This new requirement creates an increased demand for endoscopic simulators in all General Surgery residency programs. Due to the cost prohibitive nature of virtual reality simulators an economic alternative is needed.Methods:A mechanical simulator was created from inexpensive items easily acquired at a hardware store and in the hospital. Total cost of the simulator was approximately $120 USD. To validate the simulator, experienced endoscopists completed a training session with the device. A seven-question Likert scale survey (1 - strongly disagree to 5 - strongly agree) was completed after the session evaluated the simulated experience versus live upper endoscopies and the device’s ability to meet the goals of the FES curriculum.Results:Eight proficient endoscopists completed the training session and survey and agreed that the device closely replicated live colonoscopies and would meet all training requirements in the FES curriculum. Mean responses to all seven survey questions ranged from 3.8–4.4.Conclusion:This device is a cost-effective method for simulating live upper endoscopies and is appropriate for use in FES training.

How We Do It: Creation of a Low-Cost Endoscopic Skills Model for Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery Training

To design a low cost, high fidelity endoscopic skills model to help surgical trainees pass the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) testing. A homemade synthetic colon model was designed using liquid silicon and other commercially available products. The construction and design of the model is described here. The model was then successfully integrated into our simulation curriculum and endoscopic skills training modules. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio; large academic quaternary referral institution. PGY 1-5 general surgery residents preparing for Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery testing. A versatile, high fidelity model was designed for a total cost of approximately 25 dollars per unit. The model can be used with clinical endoscopic towers and easily integrated into an institution's simulation and endoscopic training curriculum. The flexibility of design allows trainees to practice all of the key motor skills necessary for FES examination success. A homemade endoscopic colon model can be constructed at an affordable price point using commercially available materials. These models have significant versatility, low cost, and flexibility of design allowing for easy incorporation into a surgical residency simulation training program.

Development of a fundamentals of endoscopic surgery proficiency-based skills curriculum for general surgery residents.

Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) has become a board certification requirement for general surgery residents. While the FES program provides a robust didactic curriculum, an endoscopic skills curriculum is lacking for this high stakes assessment. The aims of this study were to develop a proficiency-based endoscopic skills curriculum and assess its effectiveness on success in the FES exam. Endoscopy experts developed a multiple-choice questionnaire based on the FES online didactics. Five training cases from the GI Mentor II simulator were selected, and expert performance defined proficiency levels for each case. Participating surgery residents were required to review online didactics and achieve proficiency twice on selected simulator cases. The multiple-choice questionnaire, simulator-generated metrics of two endoscopy cases, Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES), NASA-Task Load Index (TLX), and the manual portion of the FES exam were used for assessment before and after training. The curriculum was implemented either alongside a clinical endoscopy rotation or independent of the rotation. Clinical endoscopic skills of participants with a dedicated rotation were assessed using GAGES. Twenty-eight general surgery residents (PGY 2-5) participated in the study, of which 25 (89%) completed the curriculum. Scores of the multiple-choice questionnaire and all simulator-generated metrics improved in the post-training assessment, with the exception of the percentage of mucosal surface examined, which was slightly decreased. Simulated and clinical GAGES scores and the NASA-TLX score improved after training. Performance scores on four of five FES exam tasks were significantly improved. The proficiency-based endoscopic skills curriculum was successfully implemented both alongside the clinical endoscopy rotation and independent of the rotation. Participating residents acquired skills to pass the FES exam. This curriculum will be valuable to general surgery residency programs.

The SAGES flexible endoscopy course for fellows: a worthwhile investment in furthering surgical endoscopy.

The SAGES flexible endoscopy course for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) fellows improves confidence and skills in performing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. This study evaluated the long-term retention of these confidence levels and investigated how fellows changed practices within their fellowships due to the course. Participating MIS fellows completed surveys 6months after the course. Respondents rated their confidence to independently perform 16 endoscopic procedures (1 = not at all; 5 = very), barriers to use of endoscopy, and current uses of endoscopy. Respondents also noted participation in additional skills courses and status of fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) certification. Comparisons of responses from the immediate post-course survey to the 6-month follow-up survey were examined. McNemar and paired t tests were used for analyses. 23 of 57 (40%) course participants returned to the 6-month survey. No major barriers to endoscopy use were identified. Fellows reported less competition with GI providers as a barrier to practice compared to their original post-course expectations (50% vs. 86%, p < 0.01). In addition, confidence was maintained in performing the majority of the 16 endoscopic procedures, although fellows reported significant decreases in confidence in independently performing snare polypectomy (- 26%; p < 0.05), control of variceal bleeding (- 39%; p < 0.05), colonic stenting (- 48%; p < 0.01), BARRX (- 40%; p < 0.05), and TIF (- 31%; p < 0.05). Fewer fellows used the GI suite to manage surgical problems than was anticipated post course (26% vs. 74%, p < 0.01). Fellows who passed FES noted no significant loss of independence, changes in use, or barriers to use. 18% made additional partnerships with industry after the course. 41% stated flexible endoscopy has influenced their post-fellowship job choice. The SAGES flexible endoscopy course for MIS fellows results in long-term practice changes with participating fellows maintaining confidence to perform the majority of taught endoscopic procedures 6months later. Additionally, fellows experienced no major barriers to implementing endoscopy into practice.

The Cost of Compliance: The Financial Burden of Fulfilling Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and American Board of Surgery Requirements

There has been a significant increase in the number of regulatory requirements for general surgery graduate medical education (GME) programs over the last 20 years from the governing bodies of the American Board of Surgery (ABS) and the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). We endeavored to calculate the cost to general surgery GME programs of regulatory requirements. We examined the requirements for General Surgery ABS Certification as well as the 2017 ACGME Program Requirements in General Surgery for all mandates that require funding by the surgery program to achieve. The requirements requiring funding include certification in Advanced Cardiac Life Support, Advanced Trauma Life Support, Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery, Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery; access to medical references; simulation capability, program director protected time (30%); program coordinator salary (Association for Hospital Medical Education reported mean); and faculty time devoted to morbidity and mortality conference, journal club, Clinical Competency Committee, and Program Evaluation Committee. We then identified the cost of each mandate based on the average program in the United States of 5 residents per year in 5 clinical years. Total cost for the average program per year as the result of ABS or ACGME mandate equaled a minimum of $227,043. The ABS associated costs are $8900 per year. The ACGME associated costs are $218,143. The cost of program director and faculty time to meet the minimum ACGME requirements equaled $159,600. The most significant cost associated with mandates set forth by the ABS and ACGME are program director and faculty time devoted to resident education and evaluation. Recognition of this cost burden by institutions and policymakers for the allocation of funds is important to maintain strong general surgery GME programs.

Simulation-based mastery learning significantly reduces gender differences on the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery performance exam.

Analysis of the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) performance exam showed higher scores for men than women. Gender differences have been reduced with task-specific practice. We assessed the effect of simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) on FES performance exam differences by gender. Forty-seven surgical trainees [29 men (m), 18 women (w)] completed a SBML curriculum and were assessed by FES. Fourteen trained on the GI Mentor 2, 18 on the Endoscopy Training System, and 15 using the Surgical Training for Endoscopic Proficiency curriculum. Performance of male and female trainees was compared. On the pre-training assessment, there were large differences between genders in FES pass rates (m 77%, w 15%, p < 0.001), total scores (m 69 ± 11, w 50 ± 12; p < 0.001), and in four of five FES sub-task scores (Navigation, m 73 ± 19, w 55 ± 22, p = 0.02; Loop reduction, m 34 ± 29, w 14 ± 22, p = 0.02; Retroflexion, m 81 ± 17, w 47 ± 27, p < 0.001; Targeting, m 89 ± 10, w 66 ± 23, p = 0.002). No differences were discernible post training (Pass rate, m 100%, w 94%, p = 0.4; Total score, m 77 ± 8, w 72 ± 12, p = 0.2; Navigation, m 91 ± 13, w 80 ± 13, p = 0.009; Loop reduction, m 49 ± 26, w 46 ± 36, p = 0.7; Retroflexion, m 82 ± 18, w 81 ± 15, p = 0.9; Targeting, m 92 ± 15, w 86 ± 12, p = 0.12). Time needed to complete curricula was not discernably different by gender (m 3.8 ± 1.7h, w 5.0 ± 2.6h, p = 0.17). Gender-based differences are nearly eliminated through task-specific SBML training. This lends further evidence to the validity argument for the FES performance exam as a measure of basic endoscopic skills.