A Cadaveric Simulation Model to Teach Suture Placement During Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to describe a cadaveric simulation model designed to teach sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) and to assess trainee performance, comfort, and skill with suture placement. METHODS: Nine invited participants from 3 institutions participated in cadaveric simulation training, consisting of a didactic lecture, technical demonstrations, and supervised execution of suture placement. Trainee self-perceived knowledge and confidence levels of SSLF were assessed before and after the educational intervention. Suture placement was assessed by expert faculty pelvic reconstructive surgeons. The number of attempts required by trainees for an anatomically safe suture placement was recorded. Participants completed a postintervention satisfaction survey. RESULTS: All 9 participants correctly identified where an SSLF suture should be placed on a printed image before the educational intervention, but only 33% achieved anatomically safe suture placement on the first attempt (mean ± SD, 2.88 ± 2.10 attempts). Four participants (44%) reported comfort with independently performing SSLF before the course. Of these, three (75%) required more than 1 attempt for successful suture placement. Mean ± SD distance of SSLF suture from the ischial spine was 1.90 ± 0.59 cm. All participants reported that they found the training helpful in learning the surgical steps and anatomy related to SSLF and would recommend it to others. CONCLUSIONS: A cadaveric simulation teaching model led to improved trainee-reported confidence with the operative steps and anatomy related to SSLF. Participants' prior knowledge of procedural steps and anatomy did not always transfer to adequate procedural skills for safe suture placement, suggesting the need for further simulation practice for fellow trainees.

A Novel Injection Technique for Extended-Release Local Anesthetic After Posterior Colporrhaphy and Perineorrhaphy: A Randomized Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of vaginal intraoperative infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine on vaginal pain among patients undergoing posterior colporrhaphy and perineorrhaphy. METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial offered to women undergoing posterior colporrhaphy and perineorrhaphy with concomitant pelvic reconstructive procedures. Liposomal bupivacaine or normal saline placebo (30 mL) was injected into the posterior vaginal compartment and perineal body in 2- to 3-mL increments, using a systematic technique. All participants received 10-mL 0.25% bupivacaine with epinephrine prior to incision. Perioperative care was standardized. The primary outcome was vaginal pain as measured by a visual analog scale. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six women were screened, and 72 were included. Demographic characteristics were similar. Median visual analog scale was not different at any time point (P = 0.81). There were no differences in secondary outcomes, including narcotic use (37.5 vs 37.5 mg morphine equivalents, P = 0.51; placebo vs liposomal bupivacaine), time to first opioid (68 vs 89.5 minutes, P = 0.56), antiemetic doses (3 vs 2, P = 0.07), hospital length of stay (24 vs 21.9 hours, P = 0.98), length of stay in postanesthesia care unit (93 vs 100 minutes, P = 0.32), proportion of patients who had a bowel movement within the first 3 postoperative days (65.7 vs 59.5% P = 0.36), or successful voiding trials (45.7 vs 59.5%, P = 0.24). There were no differences in patient satisfaction or postoperative adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of pelvic reconstructive surgeries with posterior colporrhaphy and perineorrhaphy, there were no differences in pain scores or any secondary outcomes between liposomal bupivacaine and placebo injected into the posterior vaginal compartment.