Simulated management of inferior vena cava injury during robotic paraaortic lymphadenectomy utilizing the porcine model

  • Mitchel S. HoffmanEmail author
  • Nadim Bou Zgheib
  • Caroline Young
  • Murray Shames
Original Article


Injury of the inferior vena cava is an infrequent but serious complication of paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Training in the management of this injury might be enhanced through animate simulation. Our objective was to assess a simulated animal model for training in intraoperative management of inferior vena cava injury in the context of robotic paraaortic lymphadenectomy. We used a female domestic pig to create an injury of the inferior vena cava, which was then managed two ways with robotically assisted surgery. Edited videos of the two models were assessed by 32 senior learners and 23 attending faculty. The assessments included key competencies and domains of fidelity. A scale of poor, fair, or good was utilized. The injury and management simulated those seen in humans, both anatomically and surgically, although deficiencies were noted. Specifically, a reduced rapidity of bleeding and a related greater ease of control contributed to lower ratings for some aspects of fidelity. Fidelity and addressing the key competency of suture repair also received some lower ratings, particularly from vascular surgeons and their trainees. The porcine model for simulation of inferior vena cava injury during robotically assisted paraaortic lymphadenectomy may be useful for training purposes.


Porcine Robotic Vena cava injury 



This study was funded by USF Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Mitchel Hoffman declares that he has no conflict of interest. Dr. Nadim Bou Zgheib declares that he has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Murray Shames declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of South Florida Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 33599 kb)


  1. 1.
    Querleu D, Leblanc E, Cartron G, Narducci F, Ferron G, Martel P (2006) Audit of preoperative and early complications of laparoscopic lymph node dissection in 1000 gynecologic cancer patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1287–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oderich GS, Panneton JM, Hofer J, Bower TC, Cherry KJ Jr, Sullivan T, Noel AA, Karla M, Gloviczki P (2004) Iatrogenic operative injuries of abdominal and pelvic veins: a potentially lethal complication. J Vasc Surg 39:931–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoffman MS, Humphrey M (2012) Venous injury during lymphadenectomy: management without laparotomy. J Robot Surg 6(3):267–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hammond I, Taylor J, Obermair A, McMenamin P (2004) The anatomy of complications workshop: an educational strategy to improve the training and performance of fellows in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol 94:769–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoffman M, Ondrovic L, Wenham R, Sachin A, Murray S, Zervos E, William W, Roberts W (2009) Evaluation of the porcine model to teach various ancillary procedures to gynecologic oncology fellows. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201:116.e1–116.e3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goff BA (2008) Changing the paradigm in surgical education. Obstet Gynecol 112:328–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hammoud MM, Nuthalapaty FS, Goepfert AR, Casey PM, Emmons S, Espey EL, Kaczmarczyk JM, Katz NT, Neutens JJ, Peskin EG (2008) To the point: medical education review of the role of simulators in surgical training. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:338–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR Jr, Markley S, Sierra R, Scott DJ (2006) Proficiency maintenance: impact of ongoing simulator training on laparoscopic skill retention. J Am Coll Surg 202:599–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McDougall EM, Corica FA, Boker JR, Sala LG, Stoliar G, Borin JF, Chu FT, Clayman RV (2006) Construct validity of a laparoscopic surgical simulator. J Am Coll Surg 202:779–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lanvin D, Elhage A, Henry B, Leblanc E, Querleu D, Delobelle-Deroide A (1997) Accuracy and safety of laparoscopic lymphadenectomy: an experimental prospective randomized study. Gynecol Oncol 67:83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoffman MS, Zgheib NB, Apte S, Wenham R (2017) Simulation of robotic pelvic and paraarotic lymphadenectomy utilizing the porcine model. SM J Surg. 3(1):1009–1010Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoffman MS, Palmer J, Young C, Cobb A, Downes K (2014) Simulation of cystotomy repair utilizing fresh-frozen porcine bladder. J Gynecol Surg 30:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MCC-GYN Program, Department of Gynecology OncologyH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute and University of South Florida Morsani College of MedicineTampaUSA
  2. 2.Edwards Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Joan C. Edwards School of MedicineMarshall UniversityHuntingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of South Florida Morsani College of MedicineTampaUSA
  4. 4.Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of SurgeryUniversity of South Florida Morsani College of MedicineTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations