Skip to main content
Log in

Training for next generation surgeons: a pilot study of robot-assisted hysterectomy managed by resident using dual console

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess feasibility of a standardized robot-assisted hysterectomy managed by resident and supervised by senior surgeon using dual-console on a 21-step grid (max score = 42) assessing resident autonomy.

Methods

A total of seven patients managed between September 2019 and March 2020 by six residents in gynecology and obstetrics were included. Standardized robot-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer or adenomyosis was performed.

Results

No conversion to laparotomy, no intra- or post-operative incidents were reported. Mean score on the evaluation scale was 29.8 out of 42 (SD = 7.3). Mean operative time was 104 min (SD = 23). Mean average suturing time was, respectively, 335 s (SD = 57 s) and 270 s (SD = 53 s) for the first and the fourth knot. There was a 65 s improvement between the first and the fourth intracorporeal knot (p = 0.043). The perceived workload evaluated with the NASA TLX score showed a low level of stress (Temporal demand = 1.6 /10), and a low level of frustration (Frustration level = 3.6/10). Experience gained during the surgery was felt to be important (Commitment = 8.6/10).

Conclusion

Standardized robot-assisted hysterectomy managed by a resident supervised by a senior surgeon using the dual-console seems feasible. This tool could be useful to assess residents’ surgical skills.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lavoue V, Collinet P, Fernandez H (2020) Robotic surgery in gynecology: has France lost its leadership in minimally invasive surgery? J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 49:101708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Moola D, Westermann LB, Pauls R, Eschenbacher M, Crisp C (2016) The impact of robotic-assisted surgery on training gynecology residents. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 22:11–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Martínez-Maestre MA, Melero-Cortés LM, Coronado PJ, González-Cejudo C, García-Agua N, García-Ruíz AJ, Jódar-Sánchez F (2019) Long term COST-minimization analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy. Health Econ Rev 9:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-019-0236-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Zacharopoulou C, Sananes N, Baulon E, Garbin O, Wattiez A (2010) Robotic gynecologic surgery: state of the art. Review of the literature. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 39:444–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2010.06.008

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Monsarrat N, Collinet P, Narducci F, Leblanc E, Vinatier D (2009) Robotic assistance in gynaecological surgery: state-of-the-art. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 37:415–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2009.03.023

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith AL, Scott EM, Krivak TC, Olawaiye AB, Chu T, Richard SD (2013) Dual-console robotic surgery: a new teaching paradigm. J Robot Surg 7:113–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-012-0348-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Margueritte F, Sallée C, Legros M, Lacorre A, Piver P, Aubard Y, Tardieu A, Gauthier T (2020) Description of an initiation program to robotic in vivo gynecological surgery for junior surgeons. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 49:101627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.101627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gac MM, Duminil L, Bonneau S, Gabriel R, Graesslin O, Raimond E (2019) Gynecology-obstetric resident surgery training: a national evaluation. Arch Gynecol Obstet 300:1353–1366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05284-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. NASA task load index last uptaded, August 15, 2019 https://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/tlx/downloads/TLXScale.pdf

  10. Freeman AH, Barrie A, Lyon L, Conell C, Garcia C, Littell RD, Powell CB (2017) Does surgical teaching take time? Resident participation in minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 24:783–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Igwe E, Hernandez E, Rose S, Uppal S (2014) Resident participation in laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact of trainee involvement on operative times and surgical outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 211:484.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Finan MA, Silver S, Otts E, Rocconi RP (2010) A comprehensive method to train residents in robotic hysterectomy techniques. J Robot Surg 4:183–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-010-0208-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Menager N-E, Coulomb M-A, Lambaudie E, Michel V, Mouremble O, Tourette C, Houvenaeghel G (2011) Interest of robot-assisted laparoscopy in the initial surgical training: resident survey. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 39:603–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2011.07.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Turner SR, Mormando J, Park BJ, Huang J (2019) Attitudes of robotic surgery educators and learners: challenges, advantages, tips and tricks of teaching and learning robotic surgery. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01013-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Marengo F, Larraín D, Babilonti L, Spinillo A (2012) Learning experience using the double-console da Vinci surgical system in gynecology: a prospective cohort study in a University hospital. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285:441–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2005-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moit H, Dwyer A, De Sutter M, Heinzel S, Crawford D (2019) A Standardized robotic training curriculum in a general surgery program. JSLS 23(e2019):00045. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2019.00045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Carpenter BT, Sundaram CP (2017) Training the next generation of surgeons in robotic surgery. Robot Surg Auckl 4:39–44. https://doi.org/10.2147/RSRR.S70552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Asoğlu MR, Achjian T, Akbilgiç O, Borahay MA, Kılıç GS (2016) The impact of a simulation-based training lab on outcomes of hysterectomy. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 17:60–64. https://doi.org/10.5152/jtgga.2016.16053

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Bourdel N, Tran X, Botchorhisvili R, Pouly J-L, Canis M, Mage G (2009) Hystérectomie par cœlioscopie en dix étapes. J Chir Visc 146(5):483–491

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rusch P, Ind T, Kimmig R, Maggioni A, Ponce J, Zanagnolo V, Coronado PJ, Verguts J, Lambaudie E, Falconer H, Collins JW, Verheijen R (2019) Recommendations for a standardised educational program in robot assisted gynaecological surgery: consensus from the Society of European Robotic Gynaecological Surgery (SERGS). Facts Views Vis ObGyn 11:29–41

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the nurses who helped us to run this program. The authors are grateful to Mrs. Sylvie Gauthier for editing the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Gauthier Tristan and Klapczynski Clémence designed and directed the project. Margueritte François and Lacorre Aymeline verified the analytical methods. Sallée Camille, Tardieu Antoine, Peschot Clémence, Boutot Manon, Mohand Nadia contributed to sample preparation. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tristan Gauthier.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no competing interests related to this study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 Video: Standardized robot-assisted hysterectomy (WMV 57 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klapczynski, C., Sallée, C., Tardieu, A. et al. Training for next generation surgeons: a pilot study of robot-assisted hysterectomy managed by resident using dual console. Arch Gynecol Obstet 303, 981–986 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05870-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05870-2

Keywords

Navigation