Search

Objective: To evaluate what proportion of abstracts presented at the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS) Annual Scientific Meetings went on to be published in publicly available journals., Design: Retrospective observational study SETTING: Single organization PARTICIPANTS: Abstracts (oral presentations, oral posters, video presentations, non-oral posters) presented at the SGS Annual Scientific Meeting from 2013-2020 INTERVENTIONS: Variables were collected pertaining to abstract authors, study type, timing of the session presented, and journal factors. To identify possible publication, abstracts were cross-referenced in PubMed and Google Scholar., Measurements and Main Results: A total of 912 abstracts were reviewed: 155 oral presentations, 184 oral posters, 79 video presentations, and 490 non-oral posters. 45.8% of abstracts went on to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Most abstracts (75.0%) were published from institutions with a fellowship presence and at a university-based program (71.5%). The five most represented institutions presented 27.5% of all abstracts during an SGS session. Oral presentations were more likely than oral posters to be structured as randomized controlled trials (20% vs 9%, p=.028), and to be published in a journal with a higher impact factor (6.36 ± 11.74 vs. 3.88 ± 2.72, p=.031). Type of presentation and fellowship presence significantly affected the likelihood of abstract publication (oral presentation OR 0.73, 95% CI [0.466, 1.141], p=0.167; video OR 0.14, 95% CI [0.075, 0.261; non-oral poster OR 0.30, 95% CI [0.204, 0.439]; p<.001; fellowship OR 1.62, 95% CI [1.167, 2.237], p=.004)., Conclusion: Over eight years of the SGS Annual Scientific Meeting, the rate of abstract publication was 45.8%. Abstract origination from an academic institution with a fellowship program significantly affected the likelihood of publication. Abstract presentation at a society meeting is a prestigious opportunity, and prioritization of resources and elimination of barriers should be encouraged to further promote progression of these projects to publication., Competing Interests: Declarations of competing interest None, (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Study Objective: To develop a valid laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy simulation model for use as an assessment and learning tool for performing this procedure., Design: Simulation study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2)., Setting: Two tertiary academic centers., Intervention: A training model was developed to simulate performance of a laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Construct validity was measured by comparing observed masked performances on the model between experienced Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgeons (experts) and upper level trainees. All videotaped performances were scored by 2 surgeons who were masked to subject identity and using the valid and reliable Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills scale., Measurements and Main Results: The expert group included Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgeons (n = 5) experienced in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, and the trainee group (n = 15) included fourth-year gynecology residents (n = 5) and fellows in Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery and in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (n = 10). The experts performed significantly better than the trainees in total score and in every domain of the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills scale (median [range] score: expert group, 33 [30.5-39] vs. trainee group, 20.5 [13.5-30.5]; p = .002). Previous surgical experience had a strong association with performance on the model (rho > 0.75). Most subjects "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that the model was authentic to the live procedure and a useful training tool. There was strong agreement between masked raters (interclass correlation coefficient 0.84)., Conclusion: This simulation model is valid and reliable for assessing performance of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and may be used for practicing key steps of the procedure., (Copyright © 2014 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)