Effects of a training system that tracks the operator’s gaze pattern during endoscopic submucosal dissection on hemostasis

Figure 2 Comparison of the study outcomes. A student t-test was used for the comparison. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered significant. A: The time required to recognize a bleeding point. The time required to recognize a bleeding point during phase 2 was significantly shorter (after learning) than that during phase 1 (before learning) (8.3 ± 4.2 seconds vs 23.1 ± 19.2 seconds, P = 0.049); B: The time required to complete hemostasis. The time required to complete hemostasis during phase 1 (before learning) and that during phase 2 (after learning) were not significantly different (15.4 ± 6.8 seconds vs 31.9 ± 21.7 seconds, P = 0.056); C: The number of coagulation attempts. A comparison of the number of coagulation attempts performed during phase 1 (before learning) and phase 2 (after learning) indicated that significantly fewer coagulation attempts were performed during phase 2 (1.8 ± 0.7 vs 3.2 ± 1.0, P = 0.004).