Literature DB >> 23640003

Trainee performance at robotic console and benchmark operative times.

Andrea K Crane1, Elizabeth J Geller, Catherine A Matthews.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: It is an ongoing challenge to maintain surgical efficiency while integrating trainee participation. We hypothesize that a program of graduated surgical responsibility for trainees does not hinder operative efficiency.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of trainee performance times, collected prospectively in real time, for robotic cases performed at one university hospital between September 2008 and August 2011. The primary aim was to compare overall operative times between cases performed by trainees versus attendings. Secondary aims were to compare operative times for major portions of each operation by level of training and to establish benchmark operative times for trainees.
RESULTS: During the study period, 98 cases had recorded trainee performance times. Total robot docked time was longer for trainees than for attendings (155 vs 132 min, p = 0.011), but mean performance times for hysterectomy (70 vs 59 min, p = 0.096) and sacrocolpopexy (76 vs 79 min, p = 0.545) were similar. Within the trainees, there was no correlation between surgical time and rank for each step of the procedures. Utilizing mean performance times for all trainees, benchmark operative times were established for each step of hysterectomy in minutes: right side (21), left side (21), bladder flap (10), colpotomy (15), and cuff closure (19); similarly, for sacrocolpopexy: sacral and peritoneal dissection (12), anterior cuff dissection (10), posterior cuff dissection (8), anterior mesh attachment (15), posterior mesh attachment (18), sacral mesh attachment (12), and peritoneal closure (9).
CONCLUSION: In a program of graduated surgical responsibility, robotic operative efficiency was comparable when trainees were involved as console surgeons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23640003     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2102-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  14 in total

Review 1.  Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review.

Authors:  H W R Schreuder; R Wolswijk; R P Zweemer; M P Schijven; R H M Verheijen
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2011-10-10       Impact factor: 6.531

Review 2.  Robotic surgery.

Authors:  H W R Schreuder; R H M Verheijen
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 6.531

3.  A novel method for training residents in robotic hysterectomy.

Authors:  Michael A Finan; Michael E Clark; Rodney P Rocconi
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2010-04-01

Review 4.  Current status of robotic assisted pelvic surgery and future developments.

Authors:  Kamran Ahmed; Mohammad Shamim Khan; Amit Vats; Kamal Nagpal; Oliver Priest; Vanash Patel; Joshua A Vecht; Hutan Ashrafian; Guang-Zhong Yang; Thanos Athanasiou; Ara Darzi
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2009-09-06       Impact factor: 6.071

Review 5.  The evolution of robotic general surgery.

Authors:  E B Wilson
Journal:  Scand J Surg       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.360

Review 6.  Robot-assisted techniques and outcomes in the realm of pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  Brent A Parnell; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.190

7.  A comprehensive method to train residents in robotic hysterectomy techniques.

Authors:  Michael A Finan; Sarah Silver; Edward Otts; Rodney P Rocconi
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2010-08-10

8.  Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Marie Fidela R Paraiso; J Eric Jelovsek; Anna Frick; Chi Chung Grace Chen; Matthew D Barber
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve.

Authors:  Mohamed N Akl; Jaime B Long; Dobie L Giles; Jeffrey L Cornella; Paul D Pettit; Anita H Chen; Paul M Magtibay
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-01-27       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery?

Authors:  John P Lenihan; Carol Kovanda; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.137

View more
  5 in total

1.  A Novel, Structured Fellow Training Pathway for Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Tatiana Catanzarite; Jasmine Tan-Kim; John N Nguyen; Sharon Jakus-Waldman; Shawn A Menefee
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2021-05-26

2.  The impact of fellowship surgical training on operative time and patient morbidity during robotics-assisted sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Charelle M Carter-Brooks; Angela L Du; Michael J Bonidie; Jonathan P Shepherd
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-09-09       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Pedagogic Approach in the Surgical Learning: The First Period of "Assistant Surgeon" May Improve the Learning Curve for Laparoscopic Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy.

Authors:  Angeline Favre; Stephanie Huberlant; Marie Carbonnel; Julie Goetgheluck; Aurelie Revaux; Jean Marc Ayoubi
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2016-11-02

Review 4.  Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Schachar; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-04

5.  Recommendations for a standardised educational program in robot assisted gynaecological surgery: Consensus from the Society of European Robotic Gynaecological Surgery (SERGS).

Authors:  P Rusch; T Ind; R Kimmig; A Maggioni; J Ponce; V Zanagnolo; P J Coronado; J Verguts; E Lambaudie; H Falconer; J W Collins; Rhm Verheijen
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2019-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.