MP14-01 STONE SPECIALIST, CANCER SURGEON, OR BOTH? OPTIMIZING THE ENDOUROLOGY FELLOWSHIP TRAINING MODEL

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyTechnology & Instruments: Surgical Education & Skills Assessment II1 Apr 2014MP14-01 STONE SPECIALIST, CANCER SURGEON, OR BOTH? OPTIMIZING THE ENDOUROLOGY FELLOWSHIP TRAINING MODEL Lawrence Dagrosa, Vernon Pais, and Elias Hyams Lawrence DagrosaLawrence Dagrosa More articles by this author , Vernon PaisVernon Pais More articles by this author , and Elias HyamsElias Hyams More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.629AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The Endourology Society fellowship model encompasses advanced training in endourologic surgery for both benign disease (stones) and oncology. We have anecdotally observed that many endourology fellows dichotomize into one or the other area within their practices. Thus, we sought to assess the practice patterns of former endourology fellows to evaluate the contemporary utility of the traditional fellowship model. METHODS Email addresses for 320 of the 327 graduates of Endourology Society fellowships between 2001 and 2010 were obtained. These were cross referenced with the American Urological Association (AUA) member database to maximize the yield of valid addresses. A 20 question electronic survey (SurveyMonkey Inc. Palo Alto, CA) was sent to this group. Eleven addresses were invalid and 24 recipients opted out of the survey. RESULTS Responses were received from 120 of 284 former fellows with active email addresses who did not opt out of the survey (42.3%). Of respondents, 86% had completed fellowships in North America, and 71% completed one year fellowships. Among respondents in academic practice (46%), 44% reported a “mixed” benign and oncology-based practice, compared to 68% of non-academicians (Z=2.65, P=0.004). Among academic practitioners, 33% practice predominantly MIS for benign disease, and 24% practice predominantly MIS for oncology, versus 23.1% (Z= 1.18, P=0.119) and 9% (Z=2.81, P=0.003), respectively, of non-academicians. Most fellows had stability of clinical interests (benign vs. malignant disease) pre- and post-fellowship. CONCLUSIONS Fellowship-trained endourologists who work in an academic setting are more likely to have a subspecialized practice. A significant minority of private practice endourologists also have focused practice in benign disease. Few private practitioners maintain oncologic-based endourologic practices. While the traditional hybrid fellowship model may be useful for some graduates, differentiation of tracts may enable a more efficient training model. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e167 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Lawrence Dagrosa More articles by this author Vernon Pais More articles by this author Elias Hyams More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...