First evaluation of a novel colonoscopy simulator with elongation feedback comparing short vs. long colonoscope performance
Endoscopy, vol. 57
Abstract
Aims The implementation of high-quality training in colonoscopy remains challenging and different preferences for short and long colonoscopes exist. In this study, we evaluated a novel colonoscopy simulator for the first time. The artificial bowel contains multiple pressure and elongation sensors allowing to evaluate the strain induced by a real colonoscope on the bowel model. The aim was to i) evaluate the simulator’s feasibility and ii) to objectively compare the performance using a short vs. a long colonoscope. Methods We invited endoscopists participating at a German national meeting (DGE-BV 2024) or ESGE days 2024 to evaluate the Mikoto simulator. Out of 281 participants, 252 complete data sets (65 DGE-BV, 187 ESGE) were analyzed. Endoscopists were offered to perform two rounds (using a standard long and short colonoscope) with the same settings. 107 participants started with a short scope and performed the second round with a long scope and 107 did the opposite while 21 and 17 used only the long or the short scope, respectively. Afterwards, every participant filled out a survey (e.g. endoscopy experience, evaluation of the simulator, System-Usability-Scale (SUS)). The primary endpoint was time to reach the cecum, secondary endpoints were Mikoto objective measures. Results i) For all participants, there was a positive correlation between Mikoto-Score and self-assessment of experience (r=0.43, p<0.001) and between Mikoto-Score and amount of performed colonoscopies (r=0.47, p<0.001). 63.9% of endoscopists evaluated the simulator as realistic and very useful for trainees with low and average experience. The SUS was 74.4 out of 100 points corresponding to a good usability. ii) Comparing the first round, the long scope group had a tendency of reaching the cecum later than the short scope group (04:23 vs. 03:46 min, p=0.09). Comparing the second round, the cecum was reached in 03:49 min in the long scope group vs. 03:46 min in the short scope group (p=0.80). Analyzing the first vs. the second round in the same individuals, the time to reach the cecum improved about 37 seconds (p=0.10) using the long scope first and about 6 seconds using the short scope first (p=0.80). Comparing short vs. long scope, there was no significant difference in cecal intubation rate (88.8% vs. 90.7%) or overall Mikoto-Score (61.6 vs 67.8). Likewise, the sigmoid-colon pressure sensor score (1.7 vs. 2.1) and sigmoid-colon pressure active time (37s vs. 29s) were comparable while the sigmoid-colon elongation score (26.9 vs. 31.3, p=0.07) and overall elongation score (25.2 vs. 29.2, p=0.07) showed a non-significant tendency favouring the short scope. Conclusions The Mikoto colonoscopy simulator was evaluated as realistic training model and showed a good correlation with an endoscopist’s experience. No relevant differences were detected using the short vs. long standard colonoscope. Publication History Article published online: 27 March 2025 © 2025. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
Authors 9
-
RWTH Aachen University · Universitätsklinikum Aachen
Affiliation as printed
Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Frankfurt University Hospital, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Unit of Hybrid Interventional Endoscopy, Department of Gastroenterology, Mediterraneo Hospital, Glifada, Greece
-
Affiliation as printed
Nuremberg Hospital North, North Hospital, Nürnberg, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Klinikum Hanau, Hanau, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Frankfurt University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Catholic Hospital Bochum – St. Josef-Hospital, Bochum, Germany
-
Philipps University of Marburg · Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg
Affiliation as printed
University of Marburg Medical Center, Marburg, Germany
Cited by 0 stored of 0
No patents citing this paper on Lens.org (checked 2026-10-06).