↓ Skip to main content

Teaching peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) to surgeons in practice: an “into the fire” pre/post-test curriculum

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Teaching peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) to surgeons in practice: an “into the fire” pre/post-test curriculum
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5823-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomokazu Kishiki, Brittany Lapin, Chi Wang, Brandon Jonson, Lava Patel, Matthew Zapf, Matthew Gitelis, Maria A. Cassera, Lee L. Swanström, Michael B. Ujiki

Abstract

With the increasing adoption of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) as a first-line therapy for achalasia as well as a growing list of other indications, it is apparent that there is a need for effective training methods for both endoscopists in training and those already in practice. We present a hands-on-focused with pre- and post-testing methodology to teach these skills. Six POEM courses were taught by 11 experienced POEM endoscopists at two independent simulation laboratories. The training curriculum included a pre-training test, lectures and discussion, mentored hands-on instruction using live porcine and ex-plant models, and a post-training test. The scoring sheet for the pre- and post-tests assessed the POEM performance with a Likert-like scale measuring equipment setup, mucosotomy creation, endoscope navigation, visualization, myotomy, and closure. Participants were stratified by their experience with upper-GI endoscopy (Novices <100 cases vs. Experts ≥100 cases), and their data were analyzed and compared. Sixty-five participants with varying degrees of experience in upper-GI endoscopy and laparoscopic achalasia cases completed the training curriculum. Participants improved knowledge scores from 69.7 ± 17.1 (pre-test) to 87.7 ± 10.8 (post-test) (p < 0.01). POEM performance increased from 15.1 ± 5.1 to 25.0 ± 5.5 (out of 30) (p < 0.01) with the greatest gains in mucosotomy [1.7-4.4 (out of 5), p < 0.01] and equipment (3.4-4.7, p < 0.01). Novices had significantly lower pre-test scores compared with Experts in upper-GI endoscopy (overall pre-score: 11.9 ± 5.6 vs. 16.3 ± 4.6, p < 0.01). Both groups improved significantly after the course, and there were no differences in post-test scores (overall post-score: 23.9 ± 6.6 vs. 25.4 ± 5.1, p = 0.34) between Novices and Experts. A multimodal curriculum with procedural practice was an effective curricular design for teaching POEM to practitioners. The curriculum was specifically helpful for training surgeons with less upper-GI endoscopy experience.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Unspecified 1 3%
Lecturer 1 3%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 15 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 33%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Unspecified 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 14 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,479,632
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,831
of 6,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,603
of 316,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#111
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,097 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.