Assessment of technical parameters and skills training to inform a simulation-based training program for semi-automated robotic colonoscopy

Abstract

Background and study aims Video-colonoscopy, despite being the gold-standard for diagnosis of colorectal lesions, has limitations including patient discomfort and risk of complications. This study assessed training characteristics and acceptability in operators of a new robotic colonoscope (RC).

Materials and methods Participants (n = 9) with varying degrees of skill and background knowledge in colonoscopy performed colonoscopies with a RC on a simulation-based training model. Quantitative procedure-related and qualitative operator-related parameters were recorded.

Results Polyp detection rate was highest in the novice group (91.67 %) followed by experts (86.11 %), then equally, trainees and video gamers (79.17 %). Four participants repeated the procedure at a follow-up session. Each participant improved cecal intubation time and had the same or higher polyp detection rate. The potential role for RC was identified for an out-of-hospital environment and as a novel diagnostic tool.

Conclusions Results from this pilot suggest that operators at all skill levels found the RC acceptable and potentially useful as a diagnostic tool. Acquisition of skills with RC seems to improve rapidly to a clinically relevant level with simulation-based training

• References

• 1 Haggar FA, Boushey RP. Colorectal cancer epidemiology: incidence, mortality, survival, and risk factors. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2009; 22: 191-197
• 2 Logan RFA, Patnick J, Nickerson C. et al. Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests. Gut 2012; 61: 1439-1446
• 3 Christou A, Katzenellenbogen JM, Thompson SC. Australia's National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: does it work for Indigenous Australians?. BMC Public Health 2010; 10: 1-21
• 4 Geiger TM, Ricciardi R. Screening options and recommendations for colorectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2009; 22: 209-17
• 5 Bujanda L, Sarasqueta C, Zubiaurre L. et al. Low adherence to colonoscopy in the screening of first‐degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer. Gut 2007; 56: 1714-1718
• 6 Tumino E, Sacco R, Bertini M. et al. Endotics system vs colonoscopy for the detection of polyps. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 5452-5456
• 7 Rozeboom E, Ruiter J, Franken M. et al. Intuitive user interfaces increase efficiency in endoscope tip control. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 2600-2605
• 8 Rozeboom ED, Broeders IAMJ, Fockens P. Feasibility of joystick guided colonoscopy. J Robot Surg 2015; 9: 173-178
• 9 Cosentino F, Tumino E, Rubis Passoni G. et al. Functional evaluation of the Endotics System, a new disposable self-propelled robotic colonoscope: in vitro tests and clinical trial. Int J Artif Organs 2009; 32: 517-527
• 10 Ansell J, Arnaoutakis K, Goddard S. et al. The WIMAT colonoscopy suitcase model: a novel porcine polypectomy trainer. Colorectal Disease 2013; 15: 217-223