Abstract
Hemostasis results (n = 15): The number of physicians who carried out a successful hemostasis procedure increased significantly in the group with training (27% vs 73%; P = .009) but did not change in the group without training (20% vs 20%). The mean scores of injection and clipping technique improved significantly only after training.
The number of clips used decreased significantly only in the group with training; the time of clipping did not change significantly in either group. Perforation results (n = 15): The number of physicians with a successful and complete perforation closure increased nearly significantly in the group with training (40% vs 73%, P = .06) as opposed to the group without training (27% vs 47%; P = .27).
The procedure time decreased significantly in the group with training only. In clinical practice, fellows in group T had a significantly higher success rate with respect to hemostatic procedures (83.2%, range 67-100 vs 63.6%, range 25-100; P = .0447).