Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecology Manual Skills Construct Validation Trial

Malcolm G. Munro*, Arnold P. Advincula, Erika H. Banks, Tamika C. Auguste, E. Britton Chahine, Chi Chiung Grace Chen, Howard L. Curlin, Elisa M. Jorgensen, Jin Hee Kim, Cara R. King, Joelle Lucas, Magdy P. Milad, Jamal Mourad, Matthew T. Siedhoff, M. Jonathon Solnik, Christopher C. Destephano, Kim Thayn

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

12 Scopus citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:To establish validity evidence for the Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecology laparoscopic and hysteroscopic simulation systems.METHODS:A prospective cohort study was IRB approved and conducted at 15 sites in the United States and Canada. The four participant cohorts based on training status were: 1) novice (postgraduate year [PGY]-1) residents, 2) mid-level (PGY-3) residents, 3) proficient (American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology [ABOG]-certified specialists without subspecialty training); and 4) expert (ABOG-certified obstetrician-gynecologists who had completed a 2-year fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery). Qualified participants were oriented to both systems, followed by testing with five laparoscopic exercises (L-1, sleeve-peg transfer; L-2, pattern cut; L-3, extracorporeal tie; L-4, intracorporeal tie; L-5, running suture) and two hysteroscopic exercises (H-1, targeting; H-2, polyp removal). Measured outcomes included accuracy and exercise times, including incompletion rates.RESULTS:Of 227 participants, 77 were novice, 70 were mid-level, 33 were proficient, and 47 were experts. Exercise times, in seconds (±SD), for novice compared with mid-level participants for the seven exercises were as follows, and all were significant (P<.05): L-1, 256 (±59) vs 187 (±45); L-2, 274 (±38) vs 232 (±55); L-3, 344 (±101) vs 284 (±107); L-4, 481 (±126) vs 376 (±141); L-5, 494 (±106) vs 420 (±100); H-1, 176 (±56) vs 141 (±48); and H-2, 200 (±96) vs 150 (±37). Incompletion rates were highest in the novice cohort and lowest in the expert group. Exercise errors were significantly less and accuracy was greater in the expert group compared with all other groups.CONCLUSION:Validity evidence was established for the Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecology laparoscopic and hysteroscopic simulation systems by distinguishing PGY-1 from PGY-3 trainees and proficient from expert gynecologic surgeons.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)83-96
Number of pages14
JournalObstetrics and gynecology
Volume136
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2020

Funding

Supported by the AAGL. Drs. Munro and Thayn received financial support from the AAGL for purposes of this trial. Hysteroscopic instrumentation was loaned to the EMIG program by Karl Storz Endoscopy America and Olympus America Inc. Suture was donated by Medtronic and Ethicon Inc. Corporate sponsors provided no financial support, and had no influence on the design, implementation, analysis, or conclusions of this study.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecology Manual Skills Construct Validation Trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this