Laparoscopic Training in Urology Residency Programs: A Systematic Review.

Education Laparoscopy Residency urology

Journal

Current urology
ISSN: 1661-7649
Titre abrégé: Curr Urol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101471188

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 May 2019
Historique:
received: 05 07 2018
accepted: 22 07 2018
entrez: 19 7 2019
pubmed: 19 7 2019
medline: 19 7 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Laparoscopy is a widespread surgical approach for many urological conditions. Achieving prof-ciency in laparoscopic surgery requires considerable effort due to the steep learning curve. Several residency programs include standardized laparoscopic training periods in their curricula. Our aim was to systematically analyze the evidence on the current status of training in laparoscopy in different residency programs in urology. We performed a systematic review of PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane library, in February 2018, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Statement. Identified reports were reviewed according to the previously defined inclusion criteria. Eight publications, comprising a total of 985 urology residents, were selected for inclusion in this analysis. There was a wide variation between training programs in terms of exposure to laparoscopy. Most residents considered that training in lap-aroscopy was inadequate during residency and had a low degree of confidence in independently performing laparo-scopic procedures by the end of the residency. Only North American residents reported high degrees of confidence in the possibility of performing laparoscopic procedures in the uture, whereas the remaining residents, namely from European countries, reported considerably lower degrees of confidence. There were considerable differences between national urology residency programs in terms of exposure to laparoscopy. Most residents would prefer higher exposure to laparoscopy throughout their residencies.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND/AIMS OBJECTIVE
Laparoscopy is a widespread surgical approach for many urological conditions. Achieving prof-ciency in laparoscopic surgery requires considerable effort due to the steep learning curve. Several residency programs include standardized laparoscopic training periods in their curricula. Our aim was to systematically analyze the evidence on the current status of training in laparoscopy in different residency programs in urology.
METHODS METHODS
We performed a systematic review of PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane library, in February 2018, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Statement. Identified reports were reviewed according to the previously defined inclusion criteria. Eight publications, comprising a total of 985 urology residents, were selected for inclusion in this analysis.
RESULTS RESULTS
There was a wide variation between training programs in terms of exposure to laparoscopy. Most residents considered that training in lap-aroscopy was inadequate during residency and had a low degree of confidence in independently performing laparo-scopic procedures by the end of the residency. Only North American residents reported high degrees of confidence in the possibility of performing laparoscopic procedures in the uture, whereas the remaining residents, namely from European countries, reported considerably lower degrees of confidence.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
There were considerable differences between national urology residency programs in terms of exposure to laparoscopy. Most residents would prefer higher exposure to laparoscopy throughout their residencies.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31316319
doi: 10.1159/000489437
pii: cur-0012-0121
pmc: PMC6613320
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

121-126

Références

Can Urol Assoc J. 2010 Feb;4(1):42-6
pubmed: 20165577
J Endourol. 2011 Nov;25(11):1797-804
pubmed: 21877912
Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2017 Oct 16;8(4):
pubmed: 29059043
Gac Med Mex. 2016 May-Jun;152(3):339-44
pubmed: 27335189
World J Urol. 2014 Dec;32(6):1363-74
pubmed: 24493294
Eur Urol. 2014 Feb;65(2):490-6
pubmed: 24231256
Surgeon. 2016 Dec;14(6):301-307
pubmed: 26148761
Arch Esp Urol. 2014 Oct;67(8):673-83
pubmed: 25306985
Arch Esp Urol. 2018 Jan;71(1):85-88
pubmed: 29336336
J Urol. 2006 Nov;176(5):2158-66; discussion 2167
pubmed: 17070283
J Endourol. 2005 Jan-Feb;19(1):15-20
pubmed: 15735376
J Endourol. 2002 May;16(4):251-6
pubmed: 12042110
BJU Int. 2013 Dec;112(8):1223-8
pubmed: 24053711
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015 Jan 30;6:55-63
pubmed: 25674032

Auteurs

Tiago Ribeiro de Oliveira (TR)

Department of Urology, Santa Maria University Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.
Department of Urology, Armed Forces Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.

Ben Van Cleynenbreugel (BV)

Department of Urology, Leuven University Hospital, Leuven, Belgium.

Sérgio Pereira (S)

Department of Urology, Santa Maria University Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.

Pedro Oliveira (P)

Department of Urology, Santa Maria University Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.

Sandro Gaspar (S)

Department of Urology, Santa Maria University Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.

Nuno Domingues (N)

Department of Urology, Armed Forces Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.

Tito Leitão (T)

Department of Urology, Santa Maria University Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.

Artur Palmas (A)

Department of Urology, Armed Forces Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.

Tomé Lopes (T)

Department of Urology, Santa Maria University Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.

Hein Van Poppel (HV)

Department of Urology, Leuven University Hospital, Leuven, Belgium.

Classifications MeSH