Assessing practical laparoscopic training in certified Training Centers of the Gynecological Endoscopy Working Group (AGE) of the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG)

• Published in: Archives of gynecology and obstetrics Vol. 300; no. 4; pp. 957 - 966
• Main Authors: Hackethal, Andreas, Solomayer, Franz-Erich, Ulrich, Uwe A., Brucker, Sara, Bojahr, Bernd, Holthaus, Bernd, Rimbach, Stefan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01-10-2019; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Age; Curricula; Endocrinology; Endoscopy; Endoscopy - education; Female; General Gynecology; Germany; Gynecology; Gynecology - education; Human Genetics; Humans; Internship and Residency; Laparoscopy; Laparoscopy - education; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Obstetrics - education; Obstetrics/Perinatology/Midwifery; Questionnaires; Societies; Training; Working groups; Germany; Manual skills; Manual dexterity training; Laparoscopy training; Surgical education
• ISSN: 0932-0067; 1432-0711; 1432-0711
• DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05263-0

Purpose
This study was performed to assess the practical laparoscopic training in Gynecological Endoscopy Working Group (AGE) certified Training Centers (TC) and evaluate the possible implementation for a manual dexterity skills-training within the Minimal Invasive Surgery (MIC) certification process.
Material and methods
An online questionnaire was developed and the link provided for the heads of the AGE TC. The questionnaire comprised topics on TC organization, practical training performance and perspectives for future training and demographic data.
Results
Response rate was 78.9% (15/19) of AGE TC. Grasping for the basic and suturing exercises for the advanced curricula, respectively, are thought to be of highest value (each 1.0 ± 0, on a scale from 1 = very valuable to 6 = not at all valuable). Most valuable parameter in assessing training was thought to be pressure/tension with 1.80 ± 1.08 The most valuable training capacity was considered for box training under supervision (1.27 ± 0.59) and feed-back box training with direct evaluation of various surgical skills (1.40 ± 0.63). Supervised box training was also thought to have the most positive influence on surgical performance (1.33 ± 0.49). The majority of respondents (86.7%) were qualified with the highest MIC certification and additional 66.7% were sub-specialized Gynecological Oncologists.
Conclusion
The AGE certified TC offer a structured curriculum with emphasis on practical training. The results of this questionnaire and the additional respondents comments on value and future perspectives/changes of practical training support the concept and the implementation of a skills-training to the AGE MIC concept.