The compact Erlangen Active Simulator for Interventional Endoscopy: a prospective comparison in structured team‐training courses on ‘endoscopic hemostasis’ for doctors and nurses to the ‘Endo‐Trainer’ model

Background: In 1997 Hochberger and Neumann presented the ‘Erlangen Biosimulation Model’ (commercialized as the ‘Erlangen Endo‐Trainer’) at various national and international meetings. The new compactEASIE® is a simplified version of the original ‘Biosimulation Model’ (Endo‐Trainer) and is specially designed for easy handling. CompactEASIE is reduced in its features, focusing exclusively on fexible endoscopy training. The acceptance of training in endoscopic hemostasis is accepted by workshop participants, as evaluated by a questionnaire on both models. Methods: Eleven structured courses on endoscopic hemostasis for doctors and nurses organized by the same endoscopists from 3/1998 to 5/1999 were evaluated using one of both models. The questionnaires were filled in by 207/291 trainees (71%). The Endo‐Trainer was used in 4 (n = 103) and the compactEASIE in 7 courses (n = 104). Both simulators were equipped with identical types of specially prepared pig‐organ packages consisting of esophagus, stomach and duodenum, including artificial sewn‐in vessels, polyps and varices. Blood perfusion was done with a roller pump connected to the sewn‐in vessels and blood surrogate. All workshops were identical concerning the course structure: a 30‐min theoretical introduction on ulcer bleeding was followed by 2 h of practical training in injection techniques and hemoclip application. The second part of variceal therapy consisted of a 30‐min theoretical introduction prior to 2 h of practical training on sclerotherapy, band ligation and cyanoacrylate application. Finally, a questionnaire on the trainees' pre‐experience and their rating of the different workshop sections was handed out to each participant. Results: Previous endoscopic experience was comparable in both groups. The training in both simulators was highly accepted by the trainees (compactEASIE 95% excellent and good versus EASIE (Endo‐Trainer) 97%) and did not show any significant difference (P = 0.493). Even in the assessment of the single techniques, no statistical difference was observed. Furthermore, the assessments of the closeness to reality and the endoscopic environment in both simulators were identical. Conclusions: Both simulators (Endo‐Trainer, compactEASIE) are excellent educational tools for interventional endoscopy with a high level of acceptance. The easy‐to‐handle, ‘lightweight’ compactEASIE is a significant, progress tool for the future.