Literature DB >> 15350368

Laparoscopic training and practice in gynecologic oncology among Society of Gynecologic Oncologists members and fellows-in-training.

Michael Frumovitz1, Pedro T Ramirez, Marilyn Greer, Mary Ann Gregurich, Judith Wolf, Diane C Bodurka, Charles Levenback.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO) members performing laparoscopic procedures and to determine SGO members' and fellows' opinions regarding indications for and the adequacy of training in laparoscopy.
METHODS: Surveys were mailed to SGO members and fellows-in-training in December 2002. Anonymous responses were collected by mail or through a Web site. The survey was mailed twice and was estimated to take 5 min to complete. The data were analyzed using frequency distributions and nonparametric tests.
RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-six SGO members (45%) and fifty-seven fellows (49%) responded. Among SGO members, 272 (84%) currently performed laparoscopic surgeries. Reasons cited for performing laparoscopy were decreased length of hospital stay (74%), improved patient quality of life (57%), patient preference (48%), improved cosmesis (46%), and better visualization (18%). Among those who did not perform laparoscopy, 50% cited increased operating time as their main reason. When asked to indicate the laparoscopic procedure most commonly performed in their practice, 69% reported diagnosis of an adnexal mass; 11%, prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomies; and 10%, laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and lymph node staging for uterine cancer. Only 3% of SGO respondents performed more than 50% of their procedures laparoscopically, and all respondents reported converting from laparoscopy to laparotomy less than 25% of the time. Most respondents had limited laparoscopic training during their fellowships: 39% received none, and 46% received limited (less than five procedures per month) training. Nevertheless, 78% of SGO respondents rated their laparoscopic skills as either very good or good. Among fellows, only 25% believed they were receiving very good or good laparoscopic training. Eighty percent of SGO respondents believe that at least six procedures per month were necessary for adequate training, yet only 33% of fellows performed that many procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: Most SGO respondents used laparoscopy for selective indications, and most developed their laparoscopic skills after their fellowship training. SGO respondents believed laparoscopic instruction is an important part of training, but most fellows perceived their laparoscopic training as inadequate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15350368     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.06.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  14 in total

Review 1.  Role of robotic surgery in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Paul S Lin; Mark T Wakabayashi; Ernest S Han
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2009-04-08

2.  Make New Friends But Keep the Old: Minimally Invasive Surgery Training in Gynecologic Oncology Fellowship Programs.

Authors:  Kari L Ring; Pedro T Ramirez; Lesley B Conrad; William Burke; R Wendel Naumann; Mark F Munsell; Michael Frumovitz
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 3.437

3.  Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology: An Updated Survey of Members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

Authors:  Lesley B Conrad; Pedro T Ramirez; William Burke; R Wendel Naumann; Kari L Ring; Mark F Munsell; Michael Frumovitz
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 3.437

4.  Lymphadenectomy during endometrial cancer staging: practice patterns among gynecologic oncologists.

Authors:  Pamela T Soliman; Michael Frumovitz; Whitney Spannuth; Marilyn J Greer; Sheena Sharma; Kathleen M Schmeler; Pedro T Ramirez; Charles F Levenback; Lois M Ramondetta
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Radical hysterectomy: a comparison of surgical approaches after adoption of robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology.

Authors:  Pamela T Soliman; Michael Frumovitz; Charlotte C Sun; Ricardo Dos Reis; Kathleen M Schmeler; Alpa M Nick; Shannon N Westin; Jubilee Brown; Charles F Levenback; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-08-27       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 6.  Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: review of literature and available technology.

Authors:  Shitanshu Uppal; Michael Frumovitz; Pedro Escobar; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 4.137

7.  Impact of robotic surgery on patient flow and resource use intensity in ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Jeremie Abitbol; Beste Kucukyazici; Sonya Brin; Susie Lau; Shannon Salvador; Agnihotram V Ramanakumar; Roy Kessous; Liron Kogan; John D Fletcher; Valerie Pare-Miron; Gilbert Liu; Walter H Gotlieb
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2022-08-04

8.  A comparison of robot-assisted and traditional radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.

Authors:  M Patrick Lowe; Anna V Hoekstra; Arati Jairam-Thodla; Diljeet K Singh; Barbara M Buttin; John R Lurain; Julian C Schink
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2009-02-27

9.  Trends in laparoscopic and robotic surgery among gynecologic oncologists: A survey update.

Authors:  Mohamed Mabrouk; Michael Frumovitz; Marilyn Greer; Sheena Sharma; Kathleen M Schmeler; Pamela T Soliman; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-01-12       Impact factor: 5.482

10.  Physician pain and discomfort during minimally invasive gynecologic cancer surgery.

Authors:  Megan E McDonald; Pedro T Ramirez; Mark F Munsell; Marilyn Greer; William M Burke; Wendel T Naumann; Michael Frumovitz
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 5.482

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.