Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is commonly performed for the surgical correction of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in the USA. Over the last decade, fellowship programs have increased the number of these procedures performed robotically. Currently, there is a paucity of literature exploring the impact of fellowship training on outcomes of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC). We sought to explore the impact of an expert surgeon operating alone versus with a fellow on operative time and perioperative morbidity associated with RASC.

Methods

This is an analysis of a retrospectively collected cohort of all RASCs performed to treat POP from June 2010 to August 2015 by a single attending surgeon. Outcomes were compared by expert surgeon alone and with a fellow.

Results

We identified 208 RASCs, of which 124 (59.6%) were performed by an expert surgeon alone and 84 (40.4%) with a fellow. Eight fellows were included, with a median of 7 cases (interquartile range 5–13.5). Cases with fellows were 31.1 min longer than an expert surgeon alone (155.6 vs 124.5 min, p < 0.001), a 25% increase. Increased operative time for fellows remained significant on multivariate regression (34.2 min, p < 0.001) after adjusting for case order postmenopausal status, hysterectomy, mid-urethral sling, and bowel injury. Years in fellowship did not have an impact on operative time (p = 0.80).

Complications were seen in 34 women (16.4%). On univariate regression, fellows did not have an impact on complications (OR 1.49, 95% CI [0.65–3.43]), which was unchanged on multivariate regression (OR 0.628, 95% CI [0.26–1.54]). Prolapse recurrence was seen in 19 women (9.5%). Fellows had no impact on prolapse recurrence (OR 0.478, 95% CI [0.17–1.38]), which was unchanged on multivariate regression (OR 0.266, 95% CI [0.17–1.49]).

Conclusion

When an expert surgeon operated together with a fellow, operative time increased by 34 min without increasing prolapse recurrence or complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hudson CO, Northington GM, Lyles RH, Karp DR. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(5):252–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Geller EJ, Parnell BA, Dunivan GC. Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes. Urology. 2012;79(3):532–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Siddiqui NY, Geller EJ, Visco AG. Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(5):435.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Oct;104(4):805–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang LC, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Hu JC, Laudano MA, Davison WL, Schulster ML, et al. Trends in mesh use for pelvic organ prolapse repair from the Medicare database. Urology 2015;86(5):885–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sajadi KP, Goldman HB. Robotic pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Nat Rev Urol. 2015;12(4):216–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ring KL, Ramirez PT, Conrad LB, Burke W, Wendel Naumann R, Munsell MF, et al. Make new friends but keep the old: minimally invasive surgery training in gynecologic oncology fellowship programs. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(6):1115–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Gobern JM, Novak CM, Lockrow EG. Survey of robotic surgery training in obstetrics and gynecology residency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(6):755–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Patel YR, Donias HW, Boyd DW, Pande RU, Amodeo JL, Karamanoukian RL, et al. Are you ready to become a robo-surgeon? Am Surg. 2003 Jul;69(7):599–603.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Geller EJ, Schuler KM, Boggess JF. Robotic surgical training program in gynecology: how to train residents and fellows. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(2):224–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fatehchehr S, Rostaminia G, Gardner MO, Ramunno E, Doyle NM. Robotic surgery training in gynecologic fellowship programs in the United States. JSLS 2014;18(3):e2014.00402.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Crane AK, Geller EJ, Matthews CA. Trainee performance at robotic console and benchmark operative times. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1893–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL, Cornella JL, Pettit PD, Chen AH, et al. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(10):2390–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thomas AA, Derboghossians A, Chang A, Karia R, Finley DS, Slezak J, et al. Impact of trainee involvement with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg. 2013;7(3):289–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Aminian A, Chaudhry RM, Khorgami Z, Andalib A, Augustin T, Rodriguez J, et al. A challenge between trainee education and patient safety: does fellow participation impact postoperative outcomes following bariatric surgery? Obes Surg. 2016;26(9):1999–2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pulliam SJ, Weinstein MM, Wakamatsu MM. Minimally invasive apical sacropexy: a retrospective review of laparoscopic and robotic operating room experiences. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(2):122–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Linder BJ, Anand M, Weaver AL, Woelk JL, Klingele CJ, Trabuco EC, et al. Assessing the learning curve of robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(2):239–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Guntupalli SR, Doo DW, Guy M, Sheeder J, Omurtag K, Kondapalli L, et al. Preparedness of obstetrics and gynecology residents for fellowship training. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(3):559–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1201–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Turner L, Lavelle E, Lowder JL, Shepherd JP. The impact of obesity on intraoperative complications and prolapse recurrence after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(5):317–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bedaiwy MA, Abdelrahman M, Deter S, Farghaly T, Shalaby MM, Frasure H, et al. The impact of training residents on the outcome of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Minim Invasive Surg. 2012;2012:289342.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences of the University of Pittsburgh, 300 Halket Street, Suite, Pittsburgh, PA, 2323, USA

    Charelle M. Carter-Brooks & Michael J. Bonidie

  2. Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Surgery, Magee-Womens Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Charelle M. Carter-Brooks & Michael J. Bonidie

  3. University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Angela L. Du

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Trinity Health Of New England, Hartford, CT, USA

    Jonathan P. Shepherd

Authors
  1. Charelle M. Carter-Brooks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela L. Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael J. Bonidie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jonathan P. Shepherd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charelle M. Carter-Brooks.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None of the authors reports any conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carter-Brooks, C.M., Du, A.L., Bonidie, M.J. et al. The impact of fellowship surgical training on operative time and patient morbidity during robotics-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 29, 1317–1323 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3468-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3468-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation