A comparison of surgical outcomes among robotic cases performed with an employed surgical assist versus a second surgeon as the assist.

To examine whether utilizing an employed surgical first assistant or a physician as an assistant during gynecologic robotic cases affects surgical variables. A high volume gynecologic oncologist's robotic case data spanning fourteen years (2005-2018) was analyzed. We separated the cases based on the type of assistant used: either an employed surgical first assist or another physician. The assisting physicians were either members of the same practice or general gynecologists in the community. The two groups were compared for console time and estimated blood loss. We controlled for patient Body Mass Index (BMI), uterine weight, use of the fourth robotic arm, benign versus malignant pathology, and the surgeon's subjective estimate of the difficulty of the case using a conventional laparoscopic versus robotic approach. Cases with an employed surgical assist had a mean adjusted robotic console time that was 0.32 h (19.2 min) faster than cases with a physician as the assist (95% CI 0.26 h-0.37 h faster, p < 0.001). Cases with an employed surgical assist also had an estimated blood loss (EBL) that was 47.5 cc lower than cases with a physician assisting (95% CI 38.8 cc-56.3 cc lower EBL, p < 0.001). The use of an employed surgical assist was associated with a faster console time and lower blood loss compared to using an available physician even adjusting for confounding factors. This deserves further exploration, particularly in regards to complication rates, operating room efficiency, utilization of health care personnel, and cost.