Background: Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) is a revolutionary diagnostic procedure. There is currently no accepted method of assessing EBUS technical skill or competency. Objectives: This study aimed to validate a computer EBUS simulator in differentiating between operators of varying clinical EBUS experience. Methods: A convenience sample (n = 22) of bronchoscopists was separated into four cohorts based on previous bronchoscopy experience: group A = novice bronchoscopists, no EBUS experience (n = 4), group B = expert bronchoscopists, no EBUS experience (n = 5), group C = basic clinical EBUS training (n = 9), group D = EBUS experts (n = 4). After a standardized introduction session on the EBUS simulator, participants performed 2 simulated cases on an EBUS simulator with performance metrics measured by the simulator. Results: Significant differences between groups were noted for total procedure time, percentage of lymph nodes identified and percentage of successful biopsies (p < 0.05, ANOVA). Group D performed significantly better than all other groups for total procedure time and percentage of lymph nodes identified (p < 0.05). Group C performed significantly better than groups A and B for total procedure time, percentage of lymph nodes identified and percentage of successful biopsies (p < 0.05, ANOVA). Conclusions: An EBUS simulator can accurately discriminate between operators with different levels of clinical EBUS experience. EBUS simulators show promise as a tool for assessing training and evaluating competency.

Keywords:
Bronchoscopy, Education, Endobronchial ultrasound, Interventional bronchoscopy, Simulation, Training
1.
Haponik EF, Russell GB, Beamis JF Jr, Britt EJ, Kvale P, Mathur P, Mehta A: Bronchoscopy training: current fellow’s experiences and some concerns for the future. Chest 2000;118:625–630.
2.
Tape TG, Blank L, Wigton R: Procedural skills of practicing pulmonologists: a national survey of 1,000 members of the American College of Chest Physicians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995;151:282–287.
3.
Haponik EF, Shure D: Underutilization of transbronchial needle aspiration: experiences of current pulmonary fellows. Chest 1997;112:251–253.
4.
Pastis NJ, Nietert PJ, Silvestri GA: Variation in training for interventional pulmonary procedures among US pulmonary/critical care fellowships: a survey of fellowship directors. Chest 2005;127:1614–1621.
5.
Stather DR, Jarand J, Silvestri GA, Tremblay A: An evaluation of procedural training in Canadian respirology fellowship programs: program directors’ and fellow’s perspectives. Can Respir J 2009;16:55–59.
6.
Balfe D, Mohsenifar Z: Downward trends in bronchoscopies performed between 1991 and 1997. Chest 1999;116:238–242.
7.
Herth FJ, Eberhardt R, Vilmann P, Krasnik M, Ernst A. Herth FJ, Eberhardt R, Vilmann P, Krasnik M, Ernst A: Real-time endobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspiration for sampling mediastinal lymph nodes. Thorax 2006;61:795–798.
8.
Ernst A, Silvestri GA, Johnstone D: Interventional pulmonary procedures: guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians. Chest 2003;123:1693–1717.
9.
Bolliger CT, Mathur PN, Beamis JF, Becker HD, Cavaliere S, Colt H, Diaz-Jimenez JP, Dumon JF, Edell E, Kovitz KL, Macha HN, Mehta AC, Marel M, Noppen M, Strausz J, Sutedja TG: European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society. ERS/ATS statement on interventional pulmonology. European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society. Eur Respir J 2002;19:356–373.
10.
Martin M, Vashisht B, Frezza E, Ferone T, Lopez B, Pahuja M, Spence RK: Competency-based instruction in critical invasive skills improves both resident performance and patient safety. Surgery 1998;124:313–317.
11.
Scott DJ, Bergen PC, Rege RV, Laycock R, Tesfay ST, Valentine RJ, Euhus DM, Jeyarajah DR, Thompson WM, Jones DB: Laparoscopic training on bench models: better and more cost effective than operating room experience? J Am Coll Surg 2000;191:272–283.
12.
Sedlack RE, Kolars JC, Alexander JA: Computer simulation training enhances patient comfort during endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;2:348–352.
13.
Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’Brien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, Satava RM: Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg2002;236:458–463.
14.
Dong Y, Suri HS, Cook DA, Kashani KB, Mullon JJ, Enders FT, Rubin O, Ziv A, Dunn WF: Simulation-based objective assessment discerns clinical proficiency in central line placement: a construct validation. Chest 2010;137:1050–1056.
15.
Haycock AV, Bassett P, Bladen J, Thomas-Gibson S: Validation of the second-generation Olympus colonoscopy simulator for skills assessment. Endoscopy 2009;41:952–958.
16.
Bell R, Maseelall P, Fanning J, Fenton B, Flora R: A laparoscopic simulator tool for objective measurement of resident’s laparocopic ability. JSLS 2007;11:470–473.
17.
Buyske J: The role of simulation in certification. Surg Clin North Am 2010;90:619–621.
18.
Wahidi MM, Silvestri GA, Coakley RD, Ferguson JS, Shepherd RW, Moses L, Conforti J, Que L, Anstrom KJ, McGuire F, Colt H, Downie GH: A prospective multi-center study of competency metrics and educational interventions in the learning of bronchoscopy among starting pulmonary fellows. Chest 2010;137:1040–1049.
19.
Colt HG, Crawford SW, Galbraith O: Virtual reality bronchoscopy simulation: a revolution in procedural training. Chest 2001;120:1333–1339.
20.
Ost D, DeRosiers A, Britt EJ, Fein AM, Lessier ML, Mehta AC: Assessment of a bronchoscopy simulator. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;164:2248–2255.
21.
Colt HG, Davoudi M: Bronchoscopy simulation: a brief review. Adv in Health Sci Educ 2009;14:287–296.
22.
Blum MG, Powers TW, Sundaresan S: Bronchoscopy simulator effectively prepares junior residents to competently perform basic clinical bronchoscopy.Ann Thorac Surg 2004;78:287–291.
23.
Wahidi MM, Rohani NZ, Colt HG: Comparative effectiveness of low- and high-fidelity bronchoscopy simulation for training in conventional transbronchial needle aspiration and user preferences. Respiration 2010;80:327–334.
24.
Moorthy K, Smith S, Brown T, Bann S, Darzi A: Evaluation of virtual reality bronchoscopy as a learning and assessment tool. Respiration 2003;70:195–199.
25.
Ram B, Oluwole M, Blair RL, Mountain R, Dunkley P, White PS: Surgical simulation: An animal tissue model for training in therapeutic and diagnostic bronchoscopy. J Laryngol Otol 1999;113:149–151.
26.
Binstadt E, Donner S, Nelson J, Flottemesch T, Hegarty C: Simulator training improves fiber-optic intubation proficiency among emergency medicine residents. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:1211–1214.
27.
Davoudi M, Osann K, Colt HG: Validation of two instruments to assess technical bronchoscopic skill using virtual reality simulation. Respiration 2008;76:92–101.
28.
Crawford SW, Colt HG: Virtual reality and written assessments are of potential value to determine knowledge and skill in flexible bronchoscopy. Respiration 2004;71:269–275.
29.
Kemp SV, El Batrawy SH, Harrison RN, Skwarski K, Munavvar M, Roelli A, Cusworth K, Shah PL: Learning curves for endobronchial ultrasound using cusum analysis. Thorax 2010;65:534–538.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.