Optimizing outcomes in laparoscopic urologic training: toward a standardized global consensus
- PMID: 17451326
- DOI: 10.1089/end.2007.9968
Optimizing outcomes in laparoscopic urologic training: toward a standardized global consensus
Abstract
Background and purpose: Laparoscopic urologic surgery (LUS) is one of the fastest growing subspecialties in the surgical world. The procedures require technical expertise and finesse; unlike their open counterparts, there is significant limitation in the margin for error. Various ethical, medicolegal, and health economy demands have made training in laparoscopic urologic surgery challenging. Whereas several groups have sought solutions through models, there remains a lack of consensus on the optimal training program. We review the current LUS programs with a conscious effort to decipher the basic tenets of an optimal training program and propose training models based on published evidence, in conjunction with current trends in LUS.
Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar was performed, seeking publications from January 1970 to July 2006 on laparoscopic surgical training pertaining to urology. Additionally, we looked at pertinent abstracts of the annual meetings of the American Urological Association, the European Association of Urology, and the World Congress of Endourology for the period January 1996 to and inclusive of August 2006.
Results and conclusions: To date, no study has documented a global consensus on optimal LUS training programs. Our search identified several models, some of which were applied successfully in the form of minifellowships. There remain no clear guidelines on the optimum LUS training program. The optimal program may need to be tailored to individual units, based on resources (this includes country-specific health economics, mentor availability, and caseload). Further studies are needed to help elucidate how individual programs can be initiated with a global minimum standard applicable to all training programs.
Similar articles
-
Laparoscopic training in urology: critical analysis of current evidence.J Endourol. 2010 Sep;24(9):1377-90. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0005. J Endourol. 2010. PMID: 20687856
-
EAU guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery in urology.Eur Urol. 2013 Aug;64(2):277-91. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.034. Epub 2013 May 25. Eur Urol. 2013. PMID: 23764016 Review.
-
Laparoscopic urological training programmes: the need for a consensus on minimum standards.BJU Int. 2007 Mar;99(3):489-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06724.x. BJU Int. 2007. PMID: 17407508 No abstract available.
-
Current laparoscopy training in urology: a comparison of fellowships governed by the Society of Urologic Oncology and the Endourological Society.J Endourol. 2008 Aug;22(8):1755-60. doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0335. J Endourol. 2008. PMID: 18681807
-
Are structured curriculums for laparoscopic training useful? A review of current literature.Curr Opin Urol. 2015 Mar;25(2):163-7. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000138. Curr Opin Urol. 2015. PMID: 25574792 Review.
Cited by
-
Can endourology fellowship training enhance minimally invasive surgery in urology practice?Arab J Urol. 2016 Oct 4;14(4):275-279. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2016.08.005. eCollection 2016 Dec. Arab J Urol. 2016. PMID: 27900217 Free PMC article.
-
Developing minimally invasive surgery centers within kaiser permanente: the integrated multidisciplinary experience of los angeles.Perm J. 2009 Spring;13(2):20-9. doi: 10.7812/TPP/08-104. Perm J. 2009. PMID: 21373226 Free PMC article.
-
Task completion time: Objective tool for assessment of technical skills in laparoscopic simulator for urology trainees.Indian J Urol. 2008 Jan;24(1):35-8. doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.38601. Indian J Urol. 2008. PMID: 19468356 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources