MP14-10 BASELINE UROLOGIC SURGICAL SKILLS AMONG MEDICAL STUDENTS: DIFFERENTIATING TRAINEES

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyTechnology & Instruments: Surgical Education & Skills Assessment II1 Apr 2014MP14-10 BASELINE UROLOGIC SURGICAL SKILLS AMONG MEDICAL STUDENTS: DIFFERENTIATING TRAINEES Vishaal Gupta, Andrea Lantz, Tarek Alzharani, Kirsten Foell, and Jason Y. Lee Vishaal GuptaVishaal Gupta More articles by this author , Andrea LantzAndrea Lantz More articles by this author , Tarek AlzharaniTarek Alzharani More articles by this author , Kirsten FoellKirsten Foell More articles by this author , and Jason Y. LeeJason Y. Lee More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.638AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Urology training programs seek to identify ideal candidates with the potential to become competent urologic surgeons. It is unclear whether innate technical ability has a role in this selection process. We aimed to determine whether there are any innate differences in baseline urologic technical skills among medical students. METHODS Second year medical students from the University of Toronto were recruited for this study and stratified into surgical and non-surgical cohorts based on reported career aspirations. After a pre-test questionnaire, subjects were tested on several urologic surgical skills; laparoscopy, cystoscopy, robotic surgery. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-squared test, student t-tests, Spearman’s correlation where appropriate. RESULTS A total of 29 students participated in the study and no significant baseline differences were found between cohorts with respect to demographics and prior surgical experience. For laparoscopic skills, the surgical cohort outperformed the non-surgical cohort on several exercises; Lap Beans Missed (4.9 vs 9.3, p<0.01), Lap Bean Rating (3.8 vs 3.1, p=0.01), Lap Rings Error (0.2 vs 1.22, p<0.01), Lap Rings Rating (3.9 vs 2.9, p<0.01), and LapSim Grasping Score (64.3 vs 46.4, p=0.01). For cystoscopic skills, there were no significant differences between cohorts on any of the performance metrics. The surgical cohort also outperformed the non-surgical cohort on all measured robotic surgery performance metrics: Task Time (50.6 vs 76.3, p<0.01), Task Errors (0.2 vs 3.1, p<0.01), and Task Score (89.5 vs 72.6, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS Objective innate technical ability in urological skills, particularly laparoscopy and robotics, may differ between early trainees interested in a surgical career compared to those interested in a non-surgical career. Further studies are required to illicit the impact such differences have on future performance and competence. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e171 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Vishaal Gupta More articles by this author Andrea Lantz More articles by this author Tarek Alzharani More articles by this author Kirsten Foell More articles by this author Jason Y. Lee More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...