MP21-12 THE IMPACT OF MALE INFERTILITY FACULTY ON UROLOGY RESIDENCY TRAINING: WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS ON FERTILITY KNOWLEDGE, IN-SERVICE EXAM SCORES, AND SURGICAL CONFIDENCE?

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyInfertility: Epidemiology & Evaluation I (MP21)1 Sep 2021MP21-12 THE IMPACT OF MALE INFERTILITY FACULTY ON UROLOGY RESIDENCY TRAINING: WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS ON FERTILITY KNOWLEDGE, IN-SERVICE EXAM SCORES, AND SURGICAL CONFIDENCE? Kian Asanad, David Nusbaum, John Rodman, Gerhard Fuchs, and Mary Samplaski Kian AsanadKian Asanad More articles by this author , David NusbaumDavid Nusbaum More articles by this author , John RodmanJohn Rodman More articles by this author , Gerhard FuchsGerhard Fuchs More articles by this author , and Mary SamplaskiMary Samplaski More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002006.12AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Given the lack of consistent male infertility faculty exposure in urology residency programs, we sought to understand the impact of having a dedicated reproductive urologist (RU) faculty on resident male infertility training. We surveyed urology residents to determine the effects on self-competence in male infertility knowledge, procedures, and In-Service Exam scores. METHODS: A 42-question anonymous survey was emailed to American urology residencies assessing exposure to RU faculty in the clinic and operating room, fertility knowledge in management of non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA), and self-competence in performing infertility procedures. Fisher’s Exact test was performed to examine the association between formal microsurgical training and self-reported male infertility knowledge and procedural competence. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify significant predictors of higher In-Service Exam Infertility/Sexual Medicine subscores. RESULTS: Infertility comprises ≤10% of training in 75% of respondents. Residents exposed to RU faculty are more likely to self-rate their infertility understanding as “excellent” or “good” (p=0.04 and p=0.02, respectively) and 14.4-times more likely to feel confident performing infertility procedures, versus residents lacking faculty (p<0.001). Residents with formal microsurgical training have better self-rated global infertility understanding (p<0.001), NOA management (p=0.01), and competency performing infertility procedures (p<0.00). Those that rate their knowledge of NOA management as ‘excellent’ scored, on average, 65.8 points higher on the 2019 In-Service Exam Infertility/Sexual Medicine section than those that rate their knowledge as ‘awful’ (p-value=0.007 and <0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Infertility comprises a minority of urology residency training. Most residents (80.8%) plan to perform infertility procedures in practice, despite two-thirds lacking confidence performing these. Having an RU faculty and formal microsurgical training significantly improves residents’ surgical confidence, NOA management, and global understanding of male infertility. Better knowledge in management of NOA correlates with higher In-Service Exam Infertility/Sexual Medicine subscores. A structured educational curriculum may improve resident male infertility training. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e350-e351 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Kian Asanad More articles by this author David Nusbaum More articles by this author John Rodman More articles by this author Gerhard Fuchs More articles by this author Mary Samplaski More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...