How to train practising gynaecologists in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: protocol for the stepped-wedge IMAGINE trial

Andreas Obermair, Nigel R Armfield, Nicholas Graves, Val Gebski, George B Hanna, Mark G Coleman, Anne Hughes, Monika Janda, Andreas Obermair, Nigel R Armfield, Nicholas Graves, Val Gebski, George B Hanna, Mark G Coleman, Anne Hughes, Monika Janda

Abstract

Introduction: Hysterectomy is the most common major gynaecological procedure in women and minimally invasive approaches should be used wherever possible; total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) is one such surgical approach which allows removal of the uterus entirely laparoscopically. However, lack of surgical training opportunities is impeding its increased adoption. This study will formally test a surgical outreach training model to equip surgeons with the skills to provide TLH as an alternative to total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH).

Methods and analysis: Stepped wedge implementation trial of a surgical training programme for practising obstetrician gynaecologist specialists in four hospitals.

Primary outcomes: Change in the proportion of hysterectomies performed by TAH, measured between preintervention and postintervention; we aim to reduce TAH by at least 30% in 75% of the trainees.

Secondary outcomes: (1) Number of hospitals screened, eligible, agree to training and complete the training; (2) number of surgeons screened for eligibility, eligible, agree to training, who complete training and achieve proficiency; (3) proportion of trainees achieving proficiency in correct theatre setup, vascular exposure, mobilisation and surgery closure; change in proportion proficient over time; (4) adverse events (conversion from TLH to TAH, anaesthetic incident, intraoperative visceral injury, red cell transfusions, hospital stay >7 days, incidental finding of malignancy, unplanned readmission, admission to intensive care, return to theatre, postoperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis, development of a fistula, vault haematoma, vaginal vault dehiscence or pelvic infection); (5) hospital length-of-stay; (6) cost-effectiveness and (7) trainee surgeon proficiency with TLH.

Ethics and dissemination: The study has been approved by the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee and has received site-specific approval from all participating hospitals. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Trial registration number: NCT03617354; Pre-results.

Keywords: education; hysterectomy; laparoscopy; surgical skills.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study schema.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The Implementation of Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy Trial (IMAGINE) model for total laparoscopic hysterectomy training and mentoring. Roman numeral superscripts indicate references to the relevant assessment tool contained in the appendix. *, data from SurgicalPerformance; **, Medicare Benefit Schedule items.

References

    1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). National Hospital Morbidity Database. Procedures and healthcare interventions 2013−14. Canberra, Australia, 2016.
    1. European Union. Eurostat - Surgical operations and procedure statistics. 2018.
    1. Aarts JWM, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, et al. . Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;194 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5
    1. Nieboer TE, Hendriks JC, Bongers MY, et al. . Quality of life after laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:85–91. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823d3b00
    1. Nieboer TE, Spaanderman ME, Bongers MY, et al. . Gynaecologists estimate and experience laparoscopic hysterectomy as more difficult compared with abdominal hysterectomy. Gynecol Surg 2010;7:359–63. 10.1007/s10397-010-0592-1
    1. Siew TY. Laparoscopy Versus Laparotomy for the Management of Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer. Cancer Nurs 2014;37:2–3. 10.1097/NCC.0b013e31829635b7
    1. Graves N, Janda M, Merollini K, et al. . The cost-effectiveness of total laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to total abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of early stage endometrial cancer. BMJ Open 2013;3:e001884 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001884
    1. Kluivers KB, Johnson NP, Chien P, et al. . Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy in terms of quality of life: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008;136:3–8. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.06.004
    1. Korolija D, Sauerland S, Wood-Dauphinée S, et al. . Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc 2004;18:879–97. 10.1007/s00464-003-9263-x
    1. Lumsden MA, Twaddle S, Hawthorn R, et al. . A randomised comparison and economic evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy. BJOG 2000;107:1386–91. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11653.x
    1. Walsh CA, Walsh SR, Tang TY, et al. . Total abdominal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;144:3–7. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.01.003
    1. Medtronic. Global Value Dossier for minimally invasive surgery: Hysterectomy. 2016.
    1. McCartney AJ, Obermair A. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy with a transvaginal tube. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2004;11:79–82. 10.1016/S1074-3804(05)60016-3
    1. Obermair A, Ginbey P, McCartney AJ. Feasibility and safety of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2003;10:345–9. 10.1016/S1074-3804(05)60259-9
    1. Goolab BD. Vaginal hysterectomy and relative merits over abdominal and laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013;27:393–413. 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.01.003
    1. Gupta S, Manyonda I. Hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med 2014;24:135–40. 10.1016/j.ogrm.2014.04.002
    1. Mäkinen J, Brummer T, Jalkanen J, et al. . Ten years of progress—improved hysterectomy outcomes in Finland 1996–2006: a longitudinal observation study. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003169 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003169
    1. Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, et al. . Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 2013;309:689–98. 10.1001/jama.2013.186
    1. Fader AN, Weise RM, Sinno AK, et al. . Utilization of minimally invasive surgery in endometrial cancer care: a quality and cost disparity. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:91–100. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001180
    1. Janda M, Gebski V, Brand A, et al. . Quality of life after total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for stage I endometrial cancer (LACE): a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:772–80. 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70145-5
    1. Janda M, Gebski V, Davies LC, et al. . Effect of total laparoscopic hysterectomy vs total abdominal hysterectomy on disease-free survival among women with stage I endometrial cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;317:1224–33. 10.1001/jama.2017.2068
    1. Obermair A, Janda M, Baker J, et al. . Improved surgical safety after laparoscopic compared to open surgery for apparent early stage endometrial cancer: results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer 2012;48:1147–53. 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.055
    1. El Hachem L, Andikyan V, Mathews S, et al. . Robotic single-site and conventional laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: clinical outcomes and cost analysis of a matched case-control study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016;23:760–8. 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.03.005
    1. Ind T, Laios A, Hacking M, et al. . A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot Comp 2017;13:e1851 10.1002/rcs.1851
    1. Vuorinen R-LK, Mäenpää MM, Nieminen K, et al. . Costs of Robotic-Assisted Versus Traditional Laparoscopy in Endometrial Cancer. Int J Med Robot 2017;27:1788–93. 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001073
    1. Wright JD, Ananth CV, Tergas AI, et al. . An Economic Analysis of Robotically Assisted Hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:1038–48. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000244
    1. Janda M, Armfield NR, Kerr G, et al. . Surgical approach to hysterectomy and barriers to using minimally invasive methods. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2018;58:690–5. 10.1111/ajo.12824
    1. Janda M, Armfield NR, Page K, et al. . Factors influencing women’s decision making in hysterectomy. Patient Educ Couns 2018;101:504–10. 10.1016/j.pec.2017.09.006
    1. Jokinen E, Brummer T, Jalkanen J, et al. . Hysterectomies in Finland in 1990–2012: comparison of outcomes between trainees and specialists. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015;94:701–7. 10.1111/aogs.12654
    1. Gale J, Cameron C, Chen I, et al. . Increasing Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy: A Canadian Academic Health Centre Experience. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2016;38:141–6. 10.1016/j.jogc.2015.12.004
    1. LapCo International. 2018. Available:
    1. Coleman MG, Cecil T. Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: The Lapco Manual: CRC Press, 2017.
    1. SurgicalPerformance. RISC: SurgicalPerformance App. 2018.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377–81. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
    1. Surgical Performance, 2018. Available:
    1. Makinen J, et al. . Morbidity of 10 110 hysterectomies by type of approach. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1473–8. 10.1093/humrep/16.7.1473
    1. Szasz P, Louridas M, Harris KA, et al. . Assessing technical competence in surgical trainees: a systematic review. Ann Surg 2015;261:1046–55.
    1. van Hove PD, Tuijthof GJM, Verdaasdonk EGG, et al. . Objective assessment of technical surgical skills. Br J Surg 2010;97:972–87. 10.1002/bjs.7115
    1. Einarsson JI, Suzuki Y. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy: 10 steps toward a successful procedure. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2009;2:57.
    1. Tremblay C, Grantcharov T, Urquia ML, et al. . Assessment tool for total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a Delphi consensus survey among international experts. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2014;36:1014–23. 10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30416-3
    1. Coleman MG, Hanna GB, Kennedy R, et al. . The National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in England: a new training paradigm. Colorectal Disease 2011;13:614–6. 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02643.x
    1. Mackenzie H, Cuming T, Miskovic D, et al. . Design, delivery, and validation of a trainer curriculum for the National laparoscopic colorectal training program in England. Ann Surg 2015;261:149–56. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000437
    1. Miskovic D, Ni M, Wyles SM, et al. . Is competency assessment at the specialist level achievable? A study for the national training programme in laparoscopic colorectal surgery in England. Ann Surg 2013;257:476–82. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318275b72a
    1. The Royal Australian and new Zealand College of Obstericians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG). Guidelines for performing gynaecological endoscopic procedures, 2018.
    1. Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, et al. . A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 2005;190:107–13. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.04.004

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe