Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
14 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2011-04-30
2012-01-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Effect of Preoperative Simulator Warmup on Intraoperative Robotic Surgical Skills
NCT01969487
Pelvic Floor Support After Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Conditions: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Vaginal Cuff Closure Techniques
NCT03753516
Robotic Urogynecological Surgery: Hospital Stay and Perioperative Complications
NCT01033786
Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy
NCT00581334
Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs Robotic Sacrocolpopexy
NCT02741830
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Primary outcome measure: As measured by time spent on the surgeon console from beginning of hysterectomy until the end of cervical amputation.
Secondary Outcome measures:
1. Blood loss- as measured by the blood suctioned into the canister throughout the hysterectomy and at the end of the amputation discounting irrigation volume.
2. Surgical skill rating- All procedures will be recorded and rated by a blinded investigator according to a standardized surgical skills evaluation sheet.
3. Surgeon console biometrics- As measured by controller movements and grips
4. Novice robotic surgeon data: Descriptive Operative data of surgeons who did not participate in robotic simulator training.
Methods: To create the simulator protocol, 5 robotic surgeons (each averaging \>75 robotic cases per year) performed all 28 simulation modules available on the da Vinci Skills Simulator. To establish "expert benchmarks", they picked the 10 simulator modules they thought were most beneficial to robotic novices', and they performed each of these 10 modules to the best of their ability \>5 times. The data was used to create benchmarks in which all parameters of these 10 modules were taken into account (i.e. not just the time to completion). Thus the "Morristown Protocol" was established- whereby successful completion of the protocol required passing every parameter of all 10 simulator modules at the expert level.
We then recruited community board-certified OB-GYN's who were completely naive to robotics and offered them full robotic training free-of-charge as long as they could pass the "Morristown Protocol" as their very first step in the training process. These "study surgeons" were given 24/7 access to the da Vinci Skills Simulator and simply asked to complete the protocol at their own pace. Within a week of doing so, they went through the standardized Intuitive Surgical pig lab and then performed their first ever robotic surgery- a supracervical hysterectomy- as our main outcome measure. These cases were performed using the dual-console daVinci system with one of the senior authors on the other console ready to step in if necessary.
Two sets of comparative benchmarks for this surgical procedure has been established. Our "expert surgeons" each performed supracervical hysterectomies for the study- as did a group of "control surgeons". These "control surgeons" had full robotic privileges but were not averaging more than 2 cases per month and had never used the simulator. Operative time, EBL, and a blinded skill assessment (of videos) were compared for all cases among the 3 surgeon groups using t-tests.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
CASE_CONTROL
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Expert Surgeons
Gynecologic robotic surgeons, each averaging \>75 robotic cases per year
Performing robotic supracervical hysterectomy
All groups were recorded, times and graded on their performance during a robotic supracervical hysterectomy
Study Surgeons
Gynecologic surgeons who are completely naive to robotics
Performing robotic supracervical hysterectomy
All groups were recorded, times and graded on their performance during a robotic supracervical hysterectomy
Control Surgeons
Gynecologic surgeons with full robotic privileges but were not averaging more than 2 cases a month and had never used the simulator
Performing robotic supracervical hysterectomy
All groups were recorded, times and graded on their performance during a robotic supracervical hysterectomy
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Performing robotic supracervical hysterectomy
All groups were recorded, times and graded on their performance during a robotic supracervical hysterectomy
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Intuitive Surgical
INDUSTRY
Atlantic Health System
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Patrick Culligan, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Atlantic Health System
Charbel Salamon, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Atlantic Health System
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Morristown Medical Center
Morristown, New Jersey, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
R11-01-018
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.