Surgical Simulation in Gynecology

  • Chetna AroraEmail author
  • Jin Hee Jeannie Kim
  • Arnold Patrick Advincula
Part of the Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation book series (CHS)


Gynecologic surgeries include a wide range of both operations and surgical approaches. Whether involving hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or even robotic surgical techniques, many of these skills can now be taught using a variety of simulators. Available simulation platforms range from simple box trainers for basic laparoscopic techniques to high-fidelity virtual reality education consoles that can simulate the entire procedures including potential complications. These will continue to evolve and become part of the foundation of initial training and provide opportunities for staff to learn and practice new procedures.


Simulation Gynecology Surgery Laparoscopy Robotic 


  1. 1.
    Picarella EA, Simmons JD, Borman KR, Replogle WH, Mitchell ME. “Do one, teach one” the new paradigm in general surgery residency training. J Surg Educ. 2011;68:126–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hopkins MR, Dowdy SC. Resident participation in laparoscopic hysterectomy: balancing education with safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:444–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hopkins L, Hampton BS, Abbott JF, et al. To the point: medical education, technology, and the millennial learner. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(2):188–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lindheim SR, Nouri P, Rabah KA, Yaklic JL. Medical professionalism and enculturation of the millennial physician: meeting of the minds. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1615–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith ML. Simulation and education in gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2011;38:733–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Isaacson KB. Complications of hysteroscopy. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 1999;26:39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Singhi A. Comparison of complications rates in endoscopic surgery performed by a clinical assistant vs. an experienced endoscopic surgeon. J Gynecol Endosc Surg. 2009;1:40–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Dongen H, Kolkman W, Jansen FW. Hysteroscopic surgery: perspectives on skills training. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13:121–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raymond E, Ternamian A, Leyland N, Tolomiczenko G. Endoscopy teaching in Canada: a survey of obstetrics and gynecology program directors and graduating residents. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13:10–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goff BA, VanBlaricom A, Mandel L, Chinn M, Nielsen P. Comparison of objective, structured assessment of technical skills with a virtual reality hysteroscopy trainer and standard latex hysteroscopy model. J Reprod Med. 2007;52:407–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rackow BW, Solnik MJ, Tu FF, Senapati S, Pozolo KE, Du H. Deliberate practice improves obstetrics and gynecology residents’ hysteroscopy skills. J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4:329–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Savran MM, Sorensen SM, Konge L, Tolsgaard MG, Bjerrum F. Training and assessment of hysteroscopic skills: a systematic review. J Surg Educ. 2016;73:906–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kingston A, Abbott J, Lenart M, Vancaillie T. Hysteroscopic training: the butternut pumpkin model. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2004;11:256–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clevin L. A training model for hysteroscopy. Ugeskr Laeger. 2004;166:2025–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Panel P, Bajka M, Le Tohic A, Ghoneimi AE, Chis C, Cotin S. Hysteroscopic placement of tubal sterilization implants: virtual reality simulator training. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:1986–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bajka M, Tuchschmid S, Streich M, Fink D, Szekely G, Harders M. Evaluation of a new virtual-reality training simulator for hysteroscopy. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:2026–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scott DJ, Bergen PC, Rege RV, et al. Laparoscopic training on bench models: better and more cost effective than operating room experience? J Am Coll Surg. 2000;191:272–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scott-Conner CE, Hall TJ, Anglin BL, et al. The integration of laparoscopy into a surgical residency and implications for the training environment. Surg Endosc. 1994;8:1054–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Melvin WS, Johnson JA, Ellison EC. Laparoscopic skills enhancement. Am J Surg. 1996;172:377–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larsen CR, Oestergaard J, Ottesen BS, Soerensen JL. The efficacy of virtual reality simulation training in laparoscopy: a systematic review of randomized trials. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:1015–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aggarwal R, Ward J, Balasundaram I, Sains P, Athanasiou T, Darzi A. Proving the effectiveness of virtual reality simulation for training in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 2007;246:771–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aggarwal R, Tully A, Grantcharov T, et al. Virtual reality simulation training can improve technical skills during laparoscopic salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy. BJOG. 2006;113:1382–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oropesa I, Sanchez-Gonzalez P, Lamata P, et al. Methods and tools for objective assessment of psychomotor skills in laparoscopic surgery. J Surg Res. 2011;171:e81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Hove PD, Tuijthof GJ, Verdaasdonk EG, Stassen LP, Dankelman J. Objective assessment of technical surgical skills. Br J Surg. 2010;97:972–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rooney DM, Brissman IC, Finks JF, Gauger PG. Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery manual test: is videotaped performance assessment an option? J Surg Educ. 2015;72:90–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Application of the “see one, do one, teach one” concept in surgical training. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:1194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, et al. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg. 2002;236:458–63. discussion 63-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ballantyne GH, Moll F. The da Vinci telerobotic surgical system: the virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2003;83:1293–304. viiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Glickson J. Using simulation to train oncology surgeons: gynecologic oncologists practice OR’s touch, feel – and pressures. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2011;96:31–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moola D, Westermann LB, Pauls R, Eschenbacher M, Crisp C. The impact of robotic-assisted surgery on training gynecology residents. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22:11–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berkowitz RL, Minkoff H. A call for change in a changing world. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:153–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peterson S, Mayer A, Nelson B, Roland P. Robotic surgery training in an OB/GYN residency program: a survey investigating the optimal training and credentialing of OB/GYN residents. Conn Med. 2015;79:395–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vogell A, Gujral H, Wright KN, Wright VW, Ruthazer R. Impact of a robotic simulation program on resident surgical performance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213:874–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jeppson PC, Rahimi S, Gattoc L, et al. Impact of robotic technology on hysterectomy route and associated implications for resident education. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:196.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vaccaro CM, Crisp CC, Fellner AN, Jackson C, Kleeman SD, Pavelka J. Robotic virtual reality simulation plus standard robotic orientation versus standard robotic orientation alone: a randomized controlled trial. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19:266–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alzahrani T, Haddad R, Alkhayal A, et al. Validation of the da Vinci Surgical Skill Simulator across three surgical disciplines: a pilot study. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013;7:E520–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Culligan P, Gurshumov E, Lewis C, Priestley J, Komar J, Salamon C. Predictive validity of a training protocol using a robotic surgery simulator. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20:48–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Darzi A, Smith S, Taffinder N. Assessing operative skill. Needs to become more objective. BMJ. 1999;318:887–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pellegrini VD Jr. A perspective on the effect of the 80-hour work week: has it changed the graduating orthopaedic resident? J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017;25:416–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    O’Sullivan KE, Byrne JS, Walsh TN. Basic surgical training in Ireland: the impact of operative experience, training program allocation and mentorship on trainee satisfaction. Ir J Med Sci. 2013;182:687–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kinnear B, Bensman R, Held J, O’Toole J, Schauer D, Warm E. Critical deficiency ratings in milestone assessment: a review and case study. Acad Med. 2017;92:820–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Moorthy K, Munz Y, Sarker SK, Darzi A. Objective assessment of technical skills in surgery. BMJ. 2003;327:1032–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Louridas M, Szasz P, de Montbrun S, Harris KA, Grantcharov TP. Can we predict technical aptitude?: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2016;263:673–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Grantcharov TP, Bardram L, Funch-Jensen P, Rosenberg J. Assessment of technical surgical skills. Eur J Surg. 2002;168:139–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wanzel KR, Hamstra SJ, Caminiti MF, Anastakis DJ, Grober ED, Reznick RK. Visual-spatial ability correlates with efficiency of hand motion and successful surgical performance. Surgery. 2003;134:750–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chetna Arora
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jin Hee Jeannie Kim
    • 1
  • Arnold Patrick Advincula
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian HospitalDepartment of Obstetrics and GynecologyNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Mary & Michael Jaharis Simulation CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations