title: Dual-console robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery with respect to surgical outcomes in a gynecologic oncology fellowship program.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Minimally invasive surgical techniques decrease surgical morbidity and recovery time. Studies demonstrate similar surgical outcomes comparing robotic to laparoscopic surgery. These studies have not accounted for the incorporation of fellow education. With the dual-console da Vinci Si Surgical System®, a two surgeon approach could be performed. We sought to compare surgical outcomes at a gynecologic oncology fellowship program of traditional laparoscopic to robotic surgeries using the dual-console system.
  
  
  METHODS
  We identified patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery performed by a gynecologic oncologist from November 2009-November 2010. Robotic surgeries were conducted using the dual-console, utilizing a two surgeon approach. Surgeries involved a staff physician with a gynecologic oncology fellow. Statistical analysis was performed using student t-test and chi-squared analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 222 cases were identified. Cases were analyzed in groups: all cases identified, all cancer cases, and endometrial cancer cases only. When analyzing all cases, no statistical difference was noted in total operating room time (172 vs. 175 min; p=0.6), pelvic lymph nodes removed (10.1 vs. 9.6; p=0.69), para-aortic lymph nodes dissected (3.7 vs. 3.8; p=0.91), or length of stay (1.5 vs. 1.3 days; p=0.3). There was a significant difference in total surgical time (131 vs.110 min; p<0.0001) and EBL (157 vs.94 ml; p<0.0001), favoring robotic surgery. When analyzing all cancer cases, the advantage in total surgical time for robotic surgery was lost. Complications were similar between cohorts.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Incorporating fellow education into robotic surgery does not adversely affect outcomes when compared to traditional laparoscopic surgery.
authors.affiliation: Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
authors.forename: Ashlee L
authors.initials: AL
authors.lastname: Smith
authors.forename: Thomas C
authors.initials: TC
authors.lastname: Krivak
authors.forename: Eirwen M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: Scott
authors.forename: Jose Alejandro
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Rauh-Hain
authors.forename: Paniti
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Sukumvanich
authors.forename: Alexander B
authors.initials: AB
authors.lastname: Olawaiye
authors.forename: Scott D
authors.initials: SD
authors.lastname: Richard
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001011:Aorta; D016063:Blood Loss, Surgical; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D004503:Education, Medical, Graduate / Q000379:methods*; D005257:Fellowships and Scholarships; D005260:Female; D005833:Genital Neoplasms, Female / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D007431:Intraoperative Complications / Q000209:etiology; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000193:education*; D007902:Length of Stay; D008197:Lymph Node Excision; D008875:Middle Aged; D010388:Pelvis; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000209:etiology; D012371:Robotics / Q000193:education*; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D013997:Time Factors