Training of European urology residents in laparoscopy: results of a pan‐European survey

• Published in: BJU international Vol. 112; no. 8; pp. 1223 - 1228
• Main Authors: Furriel, Frederico T.G., Laguna, Maria P., Figueiredo, Arnaldo J.C., Nunes, Pedro T.C., Rassweiler, Jens J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Wiley-Blackwell 01.12.2013; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Adult; Biological and medical sciences; Clinical Competence - statistics & numerical data; education; Education, Medical, Continuing; Europe - epidemiology; Female; Humans; Internship and Residency - statistics & numerical data; laparoscopy; Laparoscopy - education; Male; Medical sciences; Motivation; Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases; residency; Robotics - education; Scholarships & fellowships; surgical training; Surveys and Questionnaires; Telemedicine; Urologic Surgical Procedures - education; urology; Urology - education; Europe; residency; Survey; Nephrology; surgical training; Treatment; Education; Surgery; Resident; Laparoscopy; Endoscopy; Formation; Urology; laparoscopy; education; urology
• ISSN: 1464-4096; 1464-410X
• DOI: 10.1111/bju.12410

Objective To assess the participation of European urology residents in urological laparoscopy, their training patterns and facilities available in European Urology Departments. Materials and Methods A survey, consisting of 23 questions concerning laparoscopic training, was published online as well as distributed on paper, during the Annual European Association of Urology Congress in 2012. Exposure to laparoscopic procedures, acquired laparoscopic experience, training patterns, training facilities and motivation were evaluated. Data was analysed with descriptive statistics. Results In all, 219 European urology residents answered the survey. Conventional laparoscopy was available in 74% of the respondents' departments, while robotic surgery was available in 17% of the departments. Of the respondents, 27% were first surgeons and 43% were assistants in conventional laparoscopic procedures. Only 23% of the residents rated their laparoscopic experience as at least ‘satisfactory’; 32% of the residents did not attend any course or fellowship on laparoscopy. Dry laboratory was the most frequent setting for training (33%), although 42% of the respondents did not have access to any type of laparoscopic laboratory. The motivation to perform laparoscopy was rated as ‘high’ or ‘very high’ by 77% of the respondents, and 81% considered a post‐residency fellowship in laparoscopy. Conclusions Urological laparoscopy is available in most European training institutions, with residents playing an active role in the procedure. However, most of them consider their laparoscopic experience to be poor. Moreover, the availability of training facilities and participation in laparoscopy courses and fellowships are low and should be encouraged.