A direct comparison of ERCP teaching models

Robert Sedlack, Bret Petersen, Kenneth Binmoeller, Joseph Kolars

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

69 Scopus citations


Background: Several teaching models for ERCP are now available. Live, anesthetized porcine models have been used for many years, but harvested porcine organ preparations have recently been developed, and computer-based endoscopy simulators now incorporate ERCP modules. Each has proven to be a useful educational modality, but there is no direct comparison among these models. This study compared the performance of these 3 ERCP teaching models. Methods: Twenty endoscopists used each ERCP training model (computer simulator, harvested porcine organ, live anesthetized pig) and then completed a survey grading the realism and performance of each model compared with performance of ERCP in patients. A rank order was established for the models relative to their realism, educational utility, ease of use, and ease of incorporation into a training program. Results: The harvested porcine organ model scored highest on indices of realism, usefulness, and performance, although this reached statistical significance only for "ease of use" (p < 0.05). Conversely, the computer simulator scored significantly lower in most realism scores, although it was felt to be the one model most easily incorporated into a training program. Conclusions: Although each ERCP teaching model has proven to be a useful training modality, the harvested porcine organ model was felt to be the most realistic as well as the most favorable model for instruction in both basic and advanced ERCP. (Gastrointest Endosc 2003;57:886-90.).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)886-890
Number of pages5
JournalGastrointestinal endoscopy
Issue number7
StatePublished - Jun 2003

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Gastroenterology


Dive into the research topics of 'A direct comparison of ERCP teaching models'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this