Evaluation of the porcine model to teach various ancillary procedures to gynecologic oncology fellows


      The purpose of this study was to subjectively evaluate the adequacy of the porcine model for training gynecologic oncology fellows.

      Study Design

      Following a defined surgical curriculum, fellow-attending pairs operated on female hogs. A predetermined dataset was collected for each procedure.


      Twenty pigs were operated on. The porcine model was determined to be a good model for laparoscopic lymphadenectomy (11), ureteroneocystostomy (7), repair of vascular injury (11), bowel anastamoses (21), distal pancreatectomy (5), nephrectomy (6), partial hepatectomy (5), diaphram stripping (5), and diaphragmatic resection (4). Two attendings and 1 fellow judged the porcine model to be fair (remaining 11 good) for ileocolonic urinary diversion, mainly due to significant differences in anatomy. Liver mobilization (5) and splenectomy (11) were determined to be fair or poor models by all participants due to the limited attachments in the pig.


      The porcine model is adequate for teaching some ancillary gynecologic oncology surgical procedures and is inadequate for others.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Lentz G.M.
        • Mandel L.S.
        • Goff B.A.
        A six-year study of surgical teaching and skills evaluation for obstetric/gynecologic residents in porcine and inanimate surgical models.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193: 2056-2061
        • Stefanidis D.
        • Korndorffer Jr, J.R.
        • Markley S.
        • Sierra R.
        • Scott D.J.
        Proficiency maintenance: impact of ongoing simulator training on laparoscopic skill retention.
        J Am Coll Surg. 2006; 202: 599-603
        • McDougall E.M.
        • Corica F.A.
        • Boker J.R.
        • et al.
        Construct validity of a laparoscopic surgical simulator.
        J Am Coll Surg. 2006; 202: 779-787
        • Atlas I.
        • Sert M.B.
        • Childers J.M.
        Preliminary technique of laparoscopic extraperitoneal infrarenal paraaortic lymphadenectomy in the porcine model.
        J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1998; 5: 283-287
        • Lanvin D.
        • Elhage A.
        • Henry B.
        • LeBlanc E.
        • Querleu D.
        • Delobelle-Deroide A.
        Accuracy and safety of laparoscopic lymphadenectomy: an experimental prospective randomized study.
        Gynecol Oncol. 1997; 67: 83-87
        • Occelli B.
        • Narducci F.
        • Lanvin D.
        • LeBlanc E.
        • Querleu D.
        Learning curves for transperitoneal laparoscopic and extraperitoneal endoscopic paraaortic lymphadenectomy.
        J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2000; 7: 51-53
      1. Getty R. Sisson and Grossman's the anatomy of the domestic animals, vol. 2. 5th ed. WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia1975: 1268-1282 (1297-303, 1306-42, 1343-58)
        • Lockhart J.L.
        • Pow-Sang J.M.
        • Persky L.
        • Sanford E.
        • Helal M.
        Results, complications and surgical indications of the Florida pouch.
        Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991; 173: 289-296