Endoscopy 2002; 34(9): 698-702
DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-33456
Original Article

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Evaluation of a Virtual Endoscopy Simulator for Training in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

A.  Ferlitsch 1 , P.  Glauninger 1 , A.  Gupper 1 , M.  Schillinger 2 , M.  Haefner 1 , A.  Gangl 1 , R.  Schoefl 1
  • 1Department of Internal Medicine IV, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Vienna, Austria
  • 2Department of Internal Medicine II, Division of Angiology, University of Vienna, Austria
Further Information

Publication History

Submitted: 30 November 2001

Accepted after Revision: 30 April 2002

Publication Date:
26 August 2002 (online)

Background and Study Aims: Skills in gastrointestinal endoscopy mainly depend on experience and practice. Training on endoscopy simulators may decrease the time needed to reach competency in endoscopy. The purpose of the study was to determine whether the GI-Mentor, a virtual reality endoscopy simulator, can distinguish between beginners and experts in endoscopy and to assess whether training improves the performance of beginners.
Methods: A total of 13 beginners and 11 experts (more than 1000 procedures) in gastrointestinaI endoscopy were included. The baseline assessment consisted of virtual endoscopies and skill tests. The beginners were randomly allocated to receive training (n = 7) or no training (n = 6). The training group was allowed to practice using the simulator for 2 hours per day. After 3 weeks participants were re-evaluated with two new virtual endoscopy cases and one virtual skill test. Insertion time, correctly identified pathologies, adverse events and skill test performance were recorded.
Results: The baseline assessment revealed significant differences favoring the experts for virtual endoscopies and skill tests. Significant differences in favor of experts were found for successful retroflection during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (P < 0.005); adverse events during colonoscopy (P < 0.02); insertion time (P < 0.001); correctly identified pathologies in gastroscopy and colonoscopy (P < 0.02); and skill test performance (P < 0.01). The final evaluation showed significant differences between training and no-training groups, in favor of the training group, for the number of adverse events during virtual endoscopy (P < 0.04), for the insertion time during colonoscopy (P < 0.03); and for skill test performance (P < 0.01). The training group improved its abilities on the simulator significantly. Differences between experts and the training group were no longer seen.
Conclusion: This virtual endoscopy simulator is capable of identifying differences between beginners and experts in gastrointestinal endoscopy. A 3-week training improves the performance of beginners significantly. This quite fast improvement in endoscopic skills certainly cannot be seen in clinical practice; no conclusions can be made about the impact of virtual simulator training on real-life endoscopy, and this must be evaluated.


  • 1 Tuggy M L. Virtual reality flexible sigmoidoscopy simulator training: Impact on resident performance.  J Am Board Fam Pract. 1998;  11 426-433
  • 2 Cass O W, Freeman M L, Peine C J. et al . Objective evaluation of endoscopy skills during training.  Ann Intern Med. 1993;  118 40-44
  • 3 Marshall J B. Technical proficiency of trainees performing colonoscopy: A learning curve.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;  42 287-291
  • 4 Tassios P S, Ladas S D, Grammenos I. et al . Acquisition of competence in colonoscopy: The learning curve of trainees.  Endoscopy. 1999;  31 702-706
  • 5 Markman H D. A new system for teaching proctosigmoidoscopic morphology.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1969;  52 65-69
  • 6 Grund K, Bräutigam D, Zindel C. et al . Interventionsfähiges Tübinger Simulationsmodell INTERPHANT für die flexible Endoskopie.  Endoskopie heute. 1998;  11 134
  • 7 Gholson C F, Provenza J M, Silver R C. et al . Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in the swine: a new model for endoscopic training and hepatobiliary research.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1990;  36 600-603
  • 8 Noar M D. An established porcine model for animate training in diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP.  Endoscopy. 1995;  27 77-80
  • 9 Freys S M, Heimbucher J, Fuchs K H. Teaching upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: The pig stomach.  Endoscopy. 1995;  27 73-76
  • 10 Hochberger J, Neumann M, Hohenberger W. et al . EASIE-Erlangen Education Simulation Model for Interventional Endoscopy - a new bio-training model for surgical endoscopy.  Biomed Tech (Berl). 1997;  42 334
  • 11 Neumann M, Mayer G, Ell C. et al . The Erlangen Endo-Trainer: Life-like simulation for diagnostic and interventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiography.  Endoscopy. 2000;  32 906-910
  • 12 Bar-Meir S. A new endoscopic simulator.  Endoscopy. 2000;  32 898-900
  • 13 Fregonese D, Cassetti T, Cestari R. et al . Basic endoscopy training: Usefulness of a computer-based simulator [abstract].  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  53 AB81
  • 14 Rex D K. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  51 33-36
  • 15 Hochberger J, Maiss J, Magdeburg B. et al . Training simulators and education in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Current status and perspectives in 2001.  Endoscopy. 2001;  33 541-549
  • 16 Cass O W. Training to competence in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A plea for continuous measuring of objective end points.  Endoscopy. 1999;  31 751-754
  • 17 Yacavone R F, Locke G R 3rd, Gostout C J. et al . Factors influencing patient satisfaction with GI endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  53 703-710
  • 18 Dafnis G, Granath F, Pahlman L. et al . The impact of endoscopists' experience and learning curves and interendoscopist variation on colonoscopy completion rates.  Endoscopy. 2001;  33 511-517

A. Ferlitsch, M.D.

Department of Internal Medicine IV · Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology ·

University of Vienna · Waehringer Guertel 18 - 20 · 1090 Vienna · Austria

Fax: + 43-1-40400-4735

Email: arnulf.ferlitsch@akh-wien.ac.at