Tatiana Catanzarite1, Jasmine Tan-Kim1, John N Nguyen2, Sharon Jakus-Waldman2, Shawn A Menefee1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego, CA. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Downey, CA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We developed a novel fellow education pathway for robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) and aimed to compare step-specific and total operative times for RASC performed by Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) attendings with those in which FPMRS fellows performed part or all of the RASC. We further aimed to compare complication and readmission rates by fellow involvement. METHODS: We tracked RASC at 1 institution between 2012 and 2018. We recorded times for total procedure, sacrocolpopexy, and 6 individual steps. Fellows were designated F1-F3 by training year. We used independent samples t-tests and analysis of variance for continuous variables and χ2 and Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables. RESULTS: Of 178 RASC procedures, 76 (42.7%) involved fellows. Concomitant procedures included hysterectomy (62.4%), midurethral sling (50%), and colporrhaphy/perineorrhaphy (51.7%). RASC without and with fellows had similar demographic, clinical, and procedural characteristics, except for midurethral sling rate (attending, 42.2% vs fellow, 60.5%; p = 0.02). RASC without and with fellows had similar times for total procedure (208.9 ± 61.0 vs 209.1 ± 48.6 minutes, p = 0.98), sacrocolpopexy (116.9 ± 39.9 vs 122.7 ± 29.2 minutes, p = 0.27), and all RASC steps except docking (attendings, 9.9 ± 8.6 vs fellows, 7.2 ± 7.0 minutes; p = 0.03). Complication rates and severity were similar without and with fellows. There were no readmissions. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: Our novel structured training program provides safe limitations for total and step-specific procedural times during fellowship education in RASC. Such training programs warrant further study to determine potential contribution to quality and safety in the teaching environment.
INTRODUCTION: We developed a novel fellow education pathway for robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) and aimed to compare step-specific and total operative times for RASC performed by Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) attendings with those in which FPMRS fellows performed part or all of the RASC. We further aimed to compare complication and readmission rates by fellow involvement. METHODS: We tracked RASC at 1 institution between 2012 and 2018. We recorded times for total procedure, sacrocolpopexy, and 6 individual steps. Fellows were designated F1-F3 by training year. We used independent samples t-tests and analysis of variance for continuous variables and χ2 and Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables. RESULTS: Of 178 RASC procedures, 76 (42.7%) involved fellows. Concomitant procedures included hysterectomy (62.4%), midurethral sling (50%), and colporrhaphy/perineorrhaphy (51.7%). RASC without and with fellows had similar demographic, clinical, and procedural characteristics, except for midurethral sling rate (attending, 42.2% vs fellow, 60.5%; p = 0.02). RASC without and with fellows had similar times for total procedure (208.9 ± 61.0 vs 209.1 ± 48.6 minutes, p = 0.98), sacrocolpopexy (116.9 ± 39.9 vs 122.7 ± 29.2 minutes, p = 0.27), and all RASC steps except docking (attendings, 9.9 ± 8.6 vs fellows, 7.2 ± 7.0 minutes; p = 0.03). Complication rates and severity were similar without and with fellows. There were no readmissions. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: Our novel structured training program provides safe limitations for total and step-specific procedural times during fellowship education in RASC. Such training programs warrant further study to determine potential contribution to quality and safety in the teaching environment.
Authors: Jasmine Tan-Kim; Shawn A Menefee; Karl M Luber; Charles W Nager; Emily S Lukacz Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Andrew J Hung; Thomas Bottyan; Thomas G Clifford; Sarfaraz Serang; Zein K Nakhoda; Swar H Shah; Hana Yokoi; Monish Aron; Inderbir S Gill Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Catherine O Hudson; Gina M Northington; Robert H Lyles; Deborah R Karp Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2014 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Tatiana Catanzarite; Sujata Saha; Matthew A Pilecki; John Y S Kim; Magdy P Milad Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Jennifer T Anger; Elizabeth R Mueller; Christopher Tarnay; Bridget Smith; Kevin Stroupe; Amy Rosenman; Linda Brubaker; Catherine Bresee; Kimberly Kenton Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Catherine Lovegrove; Giacomo Novara; Alex Mottrie; Khurshid A Guru; Matthew Brown; Ben Challacombe; Richard Popert; Johar Raza; Henk Van der Poel; James Peabody; Prokar Dasgupta; Kamran Ahmed Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 20.096