title: Trainee performance at robotic console and benchmark operative times.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  It is an ongoing challenge to maintain surgical efficiency while integrating trainee participation. We hypothesize that a program of graduated surgical responsibility for trainees does not hinder operative efficiency.
  
  
  METHODS
  This was a retrospective cohort study of trainee performance times, collected prospectively in real time, for robotic cases performed at one university hospital between September 2008 and August 2011. The primary aim was to compare overall operative times between cases performed by trainees versus attendings. Secondary aims were to compare operative times for major portions of each operation by level of training and to establish benchmark operative times for trainees.
  
  
  RESULTS
  During the study period, 98 cases had recorded trainee performance times. Total robot docked time was longer for trainees than for attendings (155 vs 132 min, p = 0.011), but mean performance times for hysterectomy (70 vs 59 min, p = 0.096) and sacrocolpopexy (76 vs 79 min, p = 0.545) were similar. Within the trainees, there was no correlation between surgical time and rank for each step of the procedures. Utilizing mean performance times for all trainees, benchmark operative times were established for each step of hysterectomy in minutes: right side (21), left side (21), bladder flap (10), colpotomy (15), and cuff closure (19); similarly, for sacrocolpopexy: sacral and peritoneal dissection (12), anterior cuff dissection (10), posterior cuff dissection (8), anterior mesh attachment (15), posterior mesh attachment (18), sacral mesh attachment (12), and peritoneal closure (9).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In a program of graduated surgical responsibility, robotic operative efficiency was comparable when trainees were involved as console surgeons.
authors: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, 3032 Old Clinic Building, Campus Box 7570, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA, andrea_crane@med.unc.edu.
authors: Andrea K
authors: AK
authors: Crane
authors: Elizabeth J
authors: EJ
authors: Geller
authors: Catherine A
authors: CA
authors: Matthews
mesh_terms: D019985:Benchmarking; D005260:Female; D013509:Gynecologic Surgical Procedures / Q000193:education* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D012187:Retroperitoneal Space; D012371:Robotics / Q000193:education / Q000706:statistics & numerical data
references: Scand J Surg. 2009;98(2):125-9
references: 19799050
references: BJOG. 2012 Jan;119(2):137-49
references: 21981104
references: J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008 Sep-Oct;15(5):589-94
references: 18722971
references: J Robot Surg. 2010 May;4(1):33-9
references: 27638570
references: J Robot Surg. 2010 Sep;4(3):183-90
references: 27638758
references: Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Sep;54(3):412-9
references: 21857171
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Nov;118(5):1005-1013
references: 21979458
references: BJOG. 2009 Jan;116(2):198-213
references: 19076952
references: J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Mar-Apr;18(2):224-9
references: 21262591
references: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011 Jan;17(1):44-9
references: 22453672
references: Surg Endosc. 2009 Oct;23(10):2390-4
references: 19172354
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;199(4):360.e1-9
references: 18928974
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Dec;112(6):1201-1206
references: 19037026
references: Int J Surg. 2009 Oct;7(5):431-40
references: 19735746