Trainee performance at robotic console and benchmark operative times
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Introduction and hypothesis
It is an ongoing challenge to maintain surgical efficiency while integrating trainee participation. We hypothesize that a program of graduated surgical responsibility for trainees does not hinder operative efficiency.
This was a retrospective cohort study of trainee performance times, collected prospectively in real time, for robotic cases performed at one university hospital between September 2008 and August 2011. The primary aim was to compare overall operative times between cases performed by trainees versus attendings. Secondary aims were to compare operative times for major portions of each operation by level of training and to establish benchmark operative times for trainees.
During the study period, 98 cases had recorded trainee performance times. Total robot docked time was longer for trainees than for attendings (155 vs 132 min, p = 0.011), but mean performance times for hysterectomy (70 vs 59 min, p = 0.096) and sacrocolpopexy (76 vs 79 min, p = 0.545) were similar. Within the trainees, there was no correlation between surgical time and rank for each step of the procedures. Utilizing mean performance times for all trainees, benchmark operative times were established for each step of hysterectomy in minutes: right side (21), left side (21), bladder flap (10), colpotomy (15), and cuff closure (19); similarly, for sacrocolpopexy: sacral and peritoneal dissection (12), anterior cuff dissection (10), posterior cuff dissection (8), anterior mesh attachment (15), posterior mesh attachment (18), sacral mesh attachment (12), and peritoneal closure (9).
In a program of graduated surgical responsibility, robotic operative efficiency was comparable when trainees were involved as console surgeons.
- Schreuder HW, Verheijen RH (2009) Robotic surgery. BJOG 116:198–213 CrossRef
- Wilson EB (2009) The evolution of robotic general surgery. Scand J Surg 98:125–129
- Ahmed K, Khan MS, Vats A et al (2009) Current status of robotic assisted pelvic surgery and future developments. Int J Surg 7:431–440 CrossRef
- Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L et al (2008) A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:360.e1–360.e9 CrossRef
- Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG (2008) Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 112:1201–1206 CrossRef
- Tan-Kim J, Menefee S, Luber K et al (2011) Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 17:44–49 CrossRef
- Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A et al (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118:1005–1013 CrossRef
- Lenihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U (2008) What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:589–594 CrossRef
- Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL et al (2009) Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc 23:2390–2394 CrossRef
- Geller EJ, Schuler KM, Boggess JF (2011) Robotic surgical training program in gynecology: how to train residents and fellows. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:224–229 CrossRef
- Finan MA, Silver S, Otts E, Rocconi RP (2010) A comprehensive method to train resident in robotic hysterectomy techniques. J Robotic Surg 4:183–190 CrossRef
- Finan MA, Clark ME, Rocconi RP (2010) A novel method for training residents in robotic hysterectomy. J Robotic Surg 4:33–39 CrossRef
- Parnell BA, Matthews CA (2011) Robot-assisted techniques and outcomes in the realm of pelvic reconstructive surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol 54:412–419 CrossRef
- Schreuder HW, Wolswijk R, Zweemer RP et al (2012) Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review. BJOG 119:137–149 CrossRef
- Trainee performance at robotic console and benchmark operative times
International Urogynecology Journal
Volume 24, Issue 11 , pp 1893-1897
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer London
- Additional Links
- Console surgeons
- Industry Sectors