Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Survey of obstetrics and gynecology residents’ training and opinions on robotic surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To investigate obstetrics and gynecology residents’ access to training in robotics and their opinions of its utility and future in gynecologic surgery a 31-item questionnaire was developed and distributed to Ob/Gyn residents in the United States via email. Results were tabulated via SurveyMonkey.com©. A total of 470 residents representative of all ACOG districts and PGY levels responded. A total of 72% of residents reported ≥3 staff surgeons performing robotic gynecologic surgery at their institution and 70% had participated in robotic surgery in the past 12 months. Robotic hysterectomy (81%) and oncologic surgery (76%) were the most frequently performed procedures. A total of 79% believe their institution should provide formal training in robotics, but only 38% report access to it. A total of 23% have operated at the surgeon console, and 44% plan to incorporate robotic surgery into their practice after completing residency. A total of 3.6% feel equipped to perform robotic surgery without additional training. A total of 63% believe robotic surgery in gynecology will continue to increase in popularity. Exposure to gynecologic robotic procedures during residency is increasing. Although residents believe robotics has a place in gynecology, many feel formalized training has not been successfully implemented into their residency. Development of a structured program for training residents in robotics merits further investigation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wu JM, Wechter ME, Geller EJ, Nguyen TV, Visco AG (2007) Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003. Obstet Gynecol 110:1091–1095

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wexner SD, Bergamaschi R, Lacy A et al (2009) The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Endosc 23:438–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Visco AG, Advincula AP (2008) Robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 112(6):1369–1382

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Garry R, Fountain J, Brown J et al (2004) EVALUATE hysterectomy trial: a multicenter randomized trial comparing abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic methods of hysterectomy. Health Technol Assess 8:1–154

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Magrina JF (2007) Robotic surgery in gynecology. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 28(2):77–82

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Payne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):286–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Duchene DA, Moinzadeh A, Gill IS, Clayman RV, Winfield HN (2006) Survey of residency training in laparoscopic and robotic surgery. J Urol 176:2158–2167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Donias HW, Karamanoukian RL, Glick PL, Bergsland J, Karamanoukian HL (2002) Survey of resident training in robotic surgery. Am Surg 68:177–181

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Patel YR, Donias HW, Boyd DW et al (2003) Are you ready to become a robo-surgeon? Am Surg 69:599–603

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chitwood WR, Wiley N, Chapman WH et al (2001) Robotic surgical training in an academic institution. Ann Surg 234:475–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rashid HH, Leung YY, Rashid MJ et al (2006) Robotic surgical education: a systematic approach to training urology residents to perform robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 68(1):75–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Judkins TN, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2009) Objective evaluation of expert and novice performance during robotic surgical training tasks. Surg Endosc 23:590–597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pulliman SJ, Berkowitz LR (2009) Smaller pieces of the hysterectomy pie: current challenges in resident surgical education. Obstet Gynecol 113:395–398

    Google Scholar 

  14. Shay BF, Thomas R, Monga M (2002) Urology practice patterns after residency training in laparoscopy. J Endourol 16:251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA

    Aimee L. Smith, Karen M. Schneider & Pamela D. Berens

  2. Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Boulevard, Weston, Fl, 33331, USA

    Aimee L. Smith

Authors
  1. Aimee L. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen M. Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pamela D. Berens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aimee L. Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, A.L., Schneider, K.M. & Berens, P.D. Survey of obstetrics and gynecology residents’ training and opinions on robotic surgery. J Robotic Surg 4, 23–27 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-010-0176-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-010-0176-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation