Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 297, Issue 6, pp 1597–1597 | Cite as

The Society of European Robotic Gynaecological Surgery (SERGS) Pilot Curriculum for robot-assisted gynaecological surgery: authors’ reply to a letter to the editor

  • Peter Rusch
  • René H. M. Verheijen

Dear Editor,

We thank Dr. Moglia for his clear summary of our pilot study. Indeed, he confirms our observation that despite well defined and structured endpoints of training, evaluation was often still performed with irregular and open feedback. This once more stresses the need for teach-the-teachers courses to educate those responsible for surgical training. Similarly, Dr. Moglia rightfully points out that Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) was not always completely used in our Pilot Curriculum. Nevertheless, we demonstrated considerable variation between trainees in the development of skills. The real-life experience of our study turned out to be helpful in drafting a standardised educational programme for training in robot-assisted surgery. On the basis of this experience, we completely agree with Dr. Moglia that modular training should be the standard and that proficiency should be based more on the portfolio with systematic and structured assessments rather than on case volume.


Author contributions

PR: Manuscript writing, project administration. RHMV: Manuscript writing, project administration.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors state the following conflicts of interest (see also “conflict of interest” form [pdf]): Peter Rusch: has a conflict of interest as advisor of Medtronics and has received honorarium from Medtronics for advice, outside the submitted work. René H.M. Verheijen: has a conflict of interest as consultant of Medtronics outside the submitted work, and he is president of the Society of European Robotic Gynaecological Surgery (SERGS), which receives educational grants from Intuitive Surgical Inc. (ISI).

Ethical approval with regard to research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

No humans involved in this article.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity Hospital Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Gynaecological OncologyUniversity Medical CenterUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations