Current Perceptions of Resident Training in Laparoscopic Nephrectomy

Stanley Yap, Sean M. DeLair, Stacy T. Tanaka, Eric A Kurzrock

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the perceived degree of training of residents in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Laparoscopic nephrectomy is well established in the field of urology and has seen increasing penetrance in urologic practice. The degree to which this recent technical shift has been integrated into urologic training at the residency level has not been characterized. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to 518 urology residents and recent graduates and to 85 laparoscopic specialists at academic medical centers. Both residents and practicing urologists were queried regarding the level of resident participation for each step of laparoscopic nephrectomy and opinions on the necessity of fellowship training. The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum and χ2 tests. Results: Attending surgeons perceived a significantly greater level of resident involvement in performing all aspects of laparoscopic nephrectomy, with the exception of hilar dissection and port closure. To perform laparoscopic nephrectomy, 12.5% of attending physicians and 5% of residents reported that a fellowship is necessary. Conclusions: Significant disagreement exists between attending surgeons and residents on the perceived degree of resident involvement in most aspects of laparoscopic nephrectomy. This could have significant implications on resident education for a procedure that is arguably the standard of care for treatment of uncomplicated renal masses. Most attending physicians and residents were in agreement that fellowship is not necessary to perform this procedure. These results raise questions regarding the future of laparoscopic training and bring to light the need for better regulation of laparoscopic training.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1067-1071
Number of pages5
JournalUrology
Volume73
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2009

Fingerprint

Nephrectomy
Urology
Physicians
Penetrance
Standard of Care
Internship and Residency
Nonparametric Statistics
Dissection
Kidney
Education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Current Perceptions of Resident Training in Laparoscopic Nephrectomy. / Yap, Stanley; DeLair, Sean M.; Tanaka, Stacy T.; Kurzrock, Eric A.

In: Urology, Vol. 73, No. 5, 01.01.2009, p. 1067-1071.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yap, Stanley ; DeLair, Sean M. ; Tanaka, Stacy T. ; Kurzrock, Eric A. / Current Perceptions of Resident Training in Laparoscopic Nephrectomy. In: Urology. 2009 ; Vol. 73, No. 5. pp. 1067-1071.
@article{e6f9d17aa08c44e7b0fe21861ac9f007,
title = "Current Perceptions of Resident Training in Laparoscopic Nephrectomy",
abstract = "Objectives: To determine the perceived degree of training of residents in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Laparoscopic nephrectomy is well established in the field of urology and has seen increasing penetrance in urologic practice. The degree to which this recent technical shift has been integrated into urologic training at the residency level has not been characterized. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to 518 urology residents and recent graduates and to 85 laparoscopic specialists at academic medical centers. Both residents and practicing urologists were queried regarding the level of resident participation for each step of laparoscopic nephrectomy and opinions on the necessity of fellowship training. The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum and χ2 tests. Results: Attending surgeons perceived a significantly greater level of resident involvement in performing all aspects of laparoscopic nephrectomy, with the exception of hilar dissection and port closure. To perform laparoscopic nephrectomy, 12.5{\%} of attending physicians and 5{\%} of residents reported that a fellowship is necessary. Conclusions: Significant disagreement exists between attending surgeons and residents on the perceived degree of resident involvement in most aspects of laparoscopic nephrectomy. This could have significant implications on resident education for a procedure that is arguably the standard of care for treatment of uncomplicated renal masses. Most attending physicians and residents were in agreement that fellowship is not necessary to perform this procedure. These results raise questions regarding the future of laparoscopic training and bring to light the need for better regulation of laparoscopic training.",
author = "Stanley Yap and DeLair, {Sean M.} and Tanaka, {Stacy T.} and Kurzrock, {Eric A}",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2008.08.520",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "73",
pages = "1067--1071",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "1527-9995",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Current Perceptions of Resident Training in Laparoscopic Nephrectomy

AU - Yap, Stanley

AU - DeLair, Sean M.

AU - Tanaka, Stacy T.

AU - Kurzrock, Eric A

PY - 2009/1/1

Y1 - 2009/1/1

N2 - Objectives: To determine the perceived degree of training of residents in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Laparoscopic nephrectomy is well established in the field of urology and has seen increasing penetrance in urologic practice. The degree to which this recent technical shift has been integrated into urologic training at the residency level has not been characterized. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to 518 urology residents and recent graduates and to 85 laparoscopic specialists at academic medical centers. Both residents and practicing urologists were queried regarding the level of resident participation for each step of laparoscopic nephrectomy and opinions on the necessity of fellowship training. The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum and χ2 tests. Results: Attending surgeons perceived a significantly greater level of resident involvement in performing all aspects of laparoscopic nephrectomy, with the exception of hilar dissection and port closure. To perform laparoscopic nephrectomy, 12.5% of attending physicians and 5% of residents reported that a fellowship is necessary. Conclusions: Significant disagreement exists between attending surgeons and residents on the perceived degree of resident involvement in most aspects of laparoscopic nephrectomy. This could have significant implications on resident education for a procedure that is arguably the standard of care for treatment of uncomplicated renal masses. Most attending physicians and residents were in agreement that fellowship is not necessary to perform this procedure. These results raise questions regarding the future of laparoscopic training and bring to light the need for better regulation of laparoscopic training.

AB - Objectives: To determine the perceived degree of training of residents in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Laparoscopic nephrectomy is well established in the field of urology and has seen increasing penetrance in urologic practice. The degree to which this recent technical shift has been integrated into urologic training at the residency level has not been characterized. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to 518 urology residents and recent graduates and to 85 laparoscopic specialists at academic medical centers. Both residents and practicing urologists were queried regarding the level of resident participation for each step of laparoscopic nephrectomy and opinions on the necessity of fellowship training. The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum and χ2 tests. Results: Attending surgeons perceived a significantly greater level of resident involvement in performing all aspects of laparoscopic nephrectomy, with the exception of hilar dissection and port closure. To perform laparoscopic nephrectomy, 12.5% of attending physicians and 5% of residents reported that a fellowship is necessary. Conclusions: Significant disagreement exists between attending surgeons and residents on the perceived degree of resident involvement in most aspects of laparoscopic nephrectomy. This could have significant implications on resident education for a procedure that is arguably the standard of care for treatment of uncomplicated renal masses. Most attending physicians and residents were in agreement that fellowship is not necessary to perform this procedure. These results raise questions regarding the future of laparoscopic training and bring to light the need for better regulation of laparoscopic training.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042599081&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042599081&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2008.08.520

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2008.08.520

M3 - Article

VL - 73

SP - 1067

EP - 1071

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 1527-9995

IS - 5

ER -