INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We earlier demonstrated that the operation time of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) by an experienced surgeon drops significantly after 30 cases to reach a steady state after 90. We now aimed to define the learning curve and to identify the most challenging steps for a trainee learning LSCP. METHODS: Prospective consecutive series of 60 patients undergoing LSCP performed by a trainee experienced in operative laparoscopy but not LSCP. Prior to the first case, the trainee primed his endoscopic suturing skills on an endotrainer for 15 h. His operation time and performance score were analysed using moving average analysis (MOA). The former and the occurrence of complications or short-term failures were compared with those of a concurrent control group consisting of patients operated on by a surgeon experienced in LSCP (teacher). The procedure was empirically divided into five consecutive steps (dissection of the promontory, the paracolic gutter and vagina, suturing of the mesh to the vault, stapling to the promontory, and peritonealisation). RESULTS: The MOA of the operation time demonstrated a learning curve for all steps, except for the dissection of and fixation to the promontory. The most time-consuming step is the dissection of the vault, for which it took the trainee 31 procedures to achieve an operation time comparable to that of the teacher. Also, the quality of the dissection improved over time. Suturing of the implant to the vault and peritonealisation took only 10 and 6 procedures respectively. There was no difference in the occurrence of major complications and in one case the trainee asked for assistance. CONCLUSION: Quality of LSCP improves with experience. Operation time falls as well, and the most time-consuming step is the dissection of the paracolic and perivaginal spaces. Prior training in laparoscopic suturing coincided with a short learning process for the phases requiring suturing.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We earlier demonstrated that the operation time of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) by an experienced surgeon drops significantly after 30 cases to reach a steady state after 90. We now aimed to define the learning curve and to identify the most challenging steps for a trainee learning LSCP. METHODS: Prospective consecutive series of 60 patients undergoing LSCP performed by a trainee experienced in operative laparoscopy but not LSCP. Prior to the first case, the trainee primed his endoscopic suturing skills on an endotrainer for 15 h. His operation time and performance score were analysed using moving average analysis (MOA). The former and the occurrence of complications or short-term failures were compared with those of a concurrent control group consisting of patients operated on by a surgeon experienced in LSCP (teacher). The procedure was empirically divided into five consecutive steps (dissection of the promontory, the paracolic gutter and vagina, suturing of the mesh to the vault, stapling to the promontory, and peritonealisation). RESULTS: The MOA of the operation time demonstrated a learning curve for all steps, except for the dissection of and fixation to the promontory. The most time-consuming step is the dissection of the vault, for which it took the trainee 31 procedures to achieve an operation time comparable to that of the teacher. Also, the quality of the dissection improved over time. Suturing of the implant to the vault and peritonealisation took only 10 and 6 procedures respectively. There was no difference in the occurrence of major complications and in one case the trainee asked for assistance. CONCLUSION: Quality of LSCP improves with experience. Operation time falls as well, and the most time-consuming step is the dissection of the paracolic and perivaginal spaces. Prior training in laparoscopic suturing coincided with a short learning process for the phases requiring suturing.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Filip Claerhout; Dirk De Ridder; Dirk Van Beckevoort; Georges Coremans; Joan Veldman; Paul Lewi; Jan Deprest Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Jasmine Tan-Kim; Shawn A Menefee; Karl M Luber; Charles W Nager; Emily S Lukacz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Carolien K M Vermeulen; Anne Lotte W M Coolen; Wilbert A Spaans; Jan Paul W R Roovers; Marlies Y Bongers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jan Deprest; Ladislav Krofta; Frank Van der Aa; Alfredo L Milani; Jan Den Boon; Filip Claerhout; Jan-Paul Roovers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: An-Sofie D'hulster; Susanne Housmans; Wilbert Spaans; Frank Van der Aa; Koen Slabbaert; Alfred L Milani; Jan Deprest Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: S Manodoro; E Werbrouck; J Veldman; K Haest; R Corona; F Claerhout; G Coremans; D De Ridder; F Spelzini; J Deprest Journal: Facts Views Vis Obgyn Date: 2011
Authors: Anne-Lotte W M Coolen; Anique M J van Oudheusden; Ben Willem J Mol; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven; Jan-Paul W R Roovers; Marlies Y Bongers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Geertje Callewaert; Jan Bosteels; Susanne Housmans; Jasper Verguts; Ben Van Cleynenbreugel; Frank Van der Aa; Dirk De Ridder; Ignace Vergote; Jan Deprest Journal: Gynecol Surg Date: 2016-01-26