Gynecological laparoscopy in residency training program: Dutch perspectives

  • W. Kolkman
  • R. Wolterbeek
  • F. W. Jansen



Implementation of laparoscopy into residency training is difficult. This study was conducted to assess the current state of implementation of laparoscopic surgery into gynecological residency program, to identify factors influencing laparoscopic skills training, and to find solutions toward better training and implementation.


In 2003 a questionnaire was sent to all 68 postgraduate year 5 and year 6 residents in obstetrics and gynecology in The Netherlands. The questionnaire addressed demographics, performance of laparoscopy, self-perceived competence, simulator training, and factors influencing laparoscopic training in residency.


Of the 68 residents, 60 (88%) responded; 46 (37%) were men and 78 (63%) women. Men showed significant higher mean self-perceived competence in some laparoscopic procedures than women. Of the respondents, 20% had no advanced laparoscopic gynecologist present in their teaching hospital. Residents felt that simulator training is important in relation to their performance in the operating room. Of all gynecological teaching hospitals in the Netherlands, 55% did not have the opportunity of simulator training. Of the respondents who had the possibility of simulator training, 33% did not use the simulator voluntarily. Residents who trained on a simulator felt training was significantly more important (p = 0.02) than residents who never practiced on a simulator. Respondents’ laparoscopic skills were subjectively evaluated in the operating room (92%) or were evaluated based on the number of laparoscopic procedures performed as primary surgeon (49%). Of the respondents, 47% were satisfied with their current laparoscopic skills and 27% also felt prepared for the more advanced procedures. Not having been primary surgeon in nonacademic teaching hospitals and even more so in academic teaching hospitals (p < 0.05) was a limiting factor in acquiring laparoscopic skills.


Incorporation of basic laparoscopic procedures into residency training has been successful; however, advanced procedures are not. Simulator training is still in its infancy in The Netherlands, is not frequently used voluntarily, and should be mandatory during residency. Acquired laparoscopic skills on a simulator and in the operating room should be objectively assessed, and above all, training of trainers is imperative.


Gynecological laparoscopy Implementation Laparoscopic skills training Simulator Advanced laparoscopy Residency training 



We thank all residents who returned the survey for their cooperation.


  1. 1.
    Blanchard MH, Amini SB, Frank TM (2004) Impact of work hour restrictions on resident case experience in an obstetrics and gynecology residency program. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(5): 1746–1751CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brölmann HA, Vervest HA, Heineman MJ (2001) Declining trend in major gynaecological surgery in The Netherlands during 1991-1998. Is there an impact on surgical skills and innovative ability? BJOG 108: 743–748PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brunner WC, Korndorffer JR Jr, Sierra R, Massarweh NN, Dunne JB, Yau CL, Scott DJ (2004) Laparoscopic virtual reality training: are 30 repetitions enough? J Surg Res 122(2): 150–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chiasson PM, Pace DE, Schlachta CM, Mamazza J, Poulin EC (2003) Minimally invasive surgery training in Canada: A survey of general surgery. Surg Endosc 17: 371–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiasson PM, Pace DE, Schlachta CM, Mamazza J, Poulin EC (2004) Minimally invasive surgical practice: a survey of general surgeons in Ontario. Can J Surg 47(1): 15–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Einarsson JI, Young A, Tsien L, Sangi-Haghpeykar H (2002) Perceived proficiency in endoscopic techniques among senior obstetrics and gynecology residents. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 9(2): 158–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feldman LS, Sherman V, Fried GM (2004) Using simulators to assess laparoscopic competence: ready for widespread use? Surgery 135(1): 28–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fowler DL, Hogle N (2000) The impact of a full-time director of minimally invasive surgery: clinical practice, education, and research. Surg Endosc 14(5): 444–447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gallagher AG, McClure N, McGuigan J, Ritchie K, Sheehy NP (1998) An ergonomic analysis of the fulcrum effect in the acquisition of endoscopic skills. Endoscopy 30(7): 617–620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goff BA, Lentz GM, Lee D, Fenner D, Morris J, Mandel LS (2001) Development of a bench station objective structured assessment of technical skills. Obstet Gynecol 98(3): 412–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haluck RS, Krummel TM (2000) Computers and virtual reality for surgical education in the 21st century. Arch Surg 135(7): 786–792PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hunter JG (2002) The case for fellowships in gastrointestinal and laparoendoscopic surgery. Surgery 132(3): 523–525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Integrating advanced laparoscopy into surgical residency training (1998) Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Surg Endosc 12(4): 374–376Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loh FH, Hameed N, Ng SC (2002) The impact of minimal access surgery on gynaecological surgery in a university gynaecological unit over a 10-year period from 1991 to 2000. Singapore Med J 43(4): 177–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, Brown M (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84(2): 273–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Navez B, Penninckx F (1999) Laparoscopic training: results of a Belgian survey in trainees. Belgian Group for Endoscopic Surgery (BGES). Acta Chir Belg 99(2): 53–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nussbaum MS (2002) Surgical endoscopy training is integral to general surgery residency and should be integrated into residency and fellowships abandoned. Semin Laparosc Surg 9(4): 212–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park A, Witzke D, Donnelly M (2002) Ongoing deficits in resident training for minimally invasive surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 9(4): 212–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rattner DW, Apelgren KN, Eubanks WS (2001) The need for training opportunities in advanced laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 15(10): 1066–1070CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reznick R, Regehr G, MacRae H, Martin J, McCulloch W (1997) Testing technical skill via an innovative “bench station” examination. Am J Surg 173(3): 226–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) (2001) Classification of laparoscopic procedures per level of difficulty. Report of the RCOG working party on training in gynaecological endoscopic surgeryGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schijven MP, Berlage JT, Jakimowicz JJ (2004) Minimal-access surgery training in the Netherlands: a survey among residents-in-training for general surgery. Surg Endosc 18(12): 1805–1814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schutte MF (2004) Debate: the nonsense of numerical final attainment level. Dutch J Obstet Gynecol 117(9): 276–277Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shay BF, Thomas R, Monga M (2002) Urology practice patterns after residency training in laparoscopy. J Endourol 16(4): 251–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gynecology, K6-76Leiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Medical Statistics and BioinformaticsLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations