Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Objective assessment of colonoscope manipulation skills in colonoscopy training

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Manipulation of the colonoscope is a technical challenge for novice clinicians which is best learned in a simulated environment. It involves the coordination of scope tip steering with scope insertion, using a rotated image as reference. The purpose of this work is to develop and validate a system which objectively assesses colonoscopy technical skills proficiency in an arbitrary training environment, allowing novices to assess their technical proficiency prior to real patient encounters.

Methods

We implemented a motion tracking setup to objectively analyze and assess the way operators perform colonoscopies, including an analysis of wrist and elbow joint motions. Subsequently, we conducted a validation study to verify whether our motion analysis could discriminate novice colonoscopists from experts. Participants navigated a wooden bench-top model using a standard colonoscope while their motions were tracked.

Results

The developed motion tracking setup allowed colonoscopists of varying levels of proficiency to have their colonoscope manipulation assessed, and was able to be operated by a trained non-technical operator. Novice operators had significantly greater median times (101.5 vs. 31.5 s) and number of hand movements (62.0 vs. 21.5) than experts. Experts, however, spent a significantly greater proportion of time in extreme ranges of wrist and elbow joint motion than novices.

Conclusion

We have developed and implemented a hand and joint motion analysis system that is able to discriminate novices from experts based on objective measures of motion. These metrics could, thus, serve as proxies for technical proficiency during training.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marshall JB (1995) Technical proficiency of trainees performing colonoscopy: a learning curve. Gastrointest Endosc 42:287–291

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson ML, Pasha TM, Leighton JA (2000) Endoscopic perforation of the colon: lessons from a 10-year study. Am J Gastroenterol 95:3418–3422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hill A, Horswill MS, Plooy AM, Watson MO, Karamatic R, Basit TA, Wallis GM, Riek S, Burgess-Limerick R, Hewett DG (2012) Assessing the realism of colonoscopy simulation: the development of an instrument and systematic comparison of 4 simulators. Gastrointest Endosc 75:631–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Preisler L, Svendsen MB, Nerup N, Svendsen LB, Konge L (2015) Simulation-based training for colonoscopy: establishing criteria for competency. Medicine (Baltimore) 94:e440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chak A, Cooper GS, Blades EW, Canto M, Sivak MV (1996) Prospective assessment of colonoscopic intubation skills in trainees. Gastrointest Endosc 44:54–57

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vassiliou MC, Kaneva PA, Poulose BK, Dunkin BJ, Marks JM, Sadik R, Sroka G, Anvari M, Thaler K, Adrales GL, Hazey JW, Lightdale JR, Velanovich V, Swanstrom LL, Mellinger JD, Fried GM (2010) Global assessment of gastrointestinal endoscopic skills (GAGES): a valid measurement tool for technical skills in flexible endoscopy. Surg Endosc 24:1834–1841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ritter EM, Cox TC, Trinca KD, Pearl JP (2013) Simulated colonoscopy objective performance evaluation (SCOPE): a non-computer-based tool for assessment of endoscopic skills. Surg Endosc 27:4073–4080

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sedlack RE, Coyle WJ, Obstein KL, Al-Haddad MA, Bakis G, Christie JA, Davila RE, DeGregorio B, DiMaio CJ, Enestvedt BK, Jorgensen J, Mullady DK, Rajan L (2014) ASGEś assessment of competency in endoscopy evaluation tools for colonoscopy and EGD. Gastrointest Endosc 79:1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Walsh CM, Ling SC, Khanna N, Cooper MA, Grover SC, May G, Walters TD, Rabeneck L, Reznick R, Carnahan H (2014) Gastrointestinal endoscopy competency assessment tool: development of a procedure-specific assessment tool for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 79:798–807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Walsh CM, Ling SC, Khanna N, Grover SC, Yu JJ, Cooper MA, Yong E, Nguyen GC, May G, Walters TD, Reznick R, Rabeneck L, Carnahan H (2015) Gastrointestinal endoscopy competency assessment tool: reliability and validity evidence. Gastrointest Endosc 81:1417–1424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Aggarwal R, Grantcharov TP, Darzi A (2007) Framework for systematic training and assessment of technical skills. J Am Coll Surg 204:697–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Reiley CE, Lin HC, Yuh DD, Hager GD (2011) Review of methods for objective surgical skill evaluation. Surg Endosc 25:356–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ansell J, Mason J, Warren N, Donnelly P, Hawkes N, Dolwani S, Torkington J (2012) Systematic review of validity testing in colonoscopy simulation. Surg Endosc 26:3040–3052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Triantafyllou K, Lazaridis LD, Dimitriadis GD (2014) Virtual reality simulators for gastrointestinal endoscopy training. World J Gastrointest Endosc 6:6–12

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ekkelenkamp VE, Koch AD, de Man RA, Kuipers EJ (2016) Training and competence assessment in GI endoscopy: a systematic review. Gut 65:607–615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Koch AD, Buzink SN, Heemskerk J, Botden SM, Veenendaal R, Jakimowicz JJ, Schoon EJ (2008) Expert and construct validity of the Simbionix GI Mentor II endoscopy simulator for colonoscopy. Surg Endosc 22:158–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fayez R, Feldman LS, Kaneva P, Fried GM (2010) Testing the construct validity of the Simbionix GI Mentor II virtual reality colonoscopy simulator metrics: module matters. Surg Endosc 24:1060–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. MacDonald J, Ketchum J, Williams RG, Rogers LQ (2003) A lay person versus a trained endoscopist: can the preop endoscopy simulator detect a difference? Surg Endosc 17:896–898

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Haycock AV, Bassett P, Bladen J, Thomas-Gibson S (2009) Validation of the second-generation Olympus colonoscopy simulator for skills assessment. Endoscopy 41:952–958

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Plooy AM, Hill A, Horswill MS, Cresp AS, Watson MO, Ooi SY, Riek S, Wallis GM, Burgess-Limerick R, Hewett DG (2012) Construct validation of a physical model colonoscopy simulator. Gastrointest Endosc 76:144–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Svendsen MB, Preisler L, Hillingsoe JG, Svendsen LB, Konge L (2014) Using motion capture to assess colonoscopy experience level. World J Gastrointest Endosc 6:193–199

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Telem DA, Rattner DW, Gee DW (2014) Endoscopic simulator curriculum improves colonoscopy performance in novice surgical interns as demonstrated in a swine model. Surg Endosc 28:1494–1499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. MacNeil K, Wang CN, Holden MS, Ungi T, Fichtinger G, Hookey L (2016) System for objectively evaluating colonoscopy procedural skills using motion analysis. In: 14th annual imaging network Ontario symposium

  24. Lasso A, Heffter T, Rankin A, Pinter C, Ungi T, Fichtinger G (2014) PLUS: open-source toolkit for ultrasound-guided intervention systems. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61:2527–2537

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ungi T, Sargent D, Moult E, Lasso A, Pinter C, McGraw RC, Fichtinger G (2012) Perk Tutor: an open-source training platform for ultrasound-guided needle insertions. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 59:3475–3481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McGraw R, Chaplin T, McKaigney C, Rang L, Jaeger M, Redfearn D, Davison C, Ungi T, Holden M, Yeo C, Keri Z, Fichtinger G (2016) Development and evaluation of a simulation-based curriculum for ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization. In: CJEM, pp 1–9

  27. Mohankumar D, Garner H, Ruff K, Ramirez FC, Fleischer D, Wu Q, Santello M (2014) Characterization of right wrist posture during simulated colonoscopy: an application of kinematic analysis to the study of endoscopic maneuvers. Gastrointest Endosc 79:480–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Walsh CM, Ling SC, Wang CS, Carnahan H (2009) Concurrent versus terminal feedback: it may be better to wait. Acad Med 84:S54–S57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Romano J, Kromrey JD, Coraggio J, Skowronek J (2006) Appropriate statistics for ordinal level data: should we really be using t-test and Cohen’s d for evaluating group differences on the NSSE and other surveys. In: Annual meeting of the Florida Association of Institutional Research

  30. Bond CF, Titus LJ (1983) Social facilitation: a meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychol Bull 94:265–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nerup N, Preisler L, Svendsen MBS, Svendsen LB, Konge L (2015) Assessment of colonoscopy by use of magnetic endoscopic imaging: design and validation of an automated tool. Gastrointest Endosc 81:548–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Preisler L, Svendsen SMB, Søndergaard B, Brink L, Nordentoft T, Svendsen LB, Konge L (2016) Automatic and unbiased assessment of competence in colonoscopy: exploring validity of the Colonoscopy Progression Score CoPS. Endosc Int Open 4:E1238–E1243

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Konge L, Svendsen MBS, Preisler L, Svendsen LB, Park YS (2017) Combining different methods improves assessment of competence in colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 52:601–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Matthew S. Holden is supported by the Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and by the Walter C. Sumner Foundation Fellowship. Gabor Fichtinger is supported as a Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair in Cancer Imaging. Financial support was received from the SEAMO Educational Innovation and Research Fund. This work was financially supported as a Collaborative Health Research Project (CHRP #127797), a joint initiative between the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Funding was provided by Walter C. Sumner Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Percutaneous Surgery, School of Computing, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

    Matthew S. Holden, Kyle MacNeil, Ben Church, Gabor Fichtinger & Tamas Ungi

  2. Gastrointestinal Diseases Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

    Chang Nancy Wang & Lawrence Hookey

Authors
  1. Matthew S. Holden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chang Nancy Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kyle MacNeil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ben Church
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lawrence Hookey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gabor Fichtinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tamas Ungi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew S. Holden.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures in this study involving human participants were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution, and were approved by the research ethics board at Queen’s University. This study does not contain any procedures involving animals.

Informed consent

All participation was voluntary, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Holden, M.S., Wang, C.N., MacNeil, K. et al. Objective assessment of colonoscope manipulation skills in colonoscopy training. Int J CARS 13, 105–114 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-017-1676-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-017-1676-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation