Urology practice patterns after residency training in laparoscopy

Purpose: Laparoscopic training has been incorporated into many urology residency programs. Although the impact of laparoscopic training courses has been examined, the impact of residency training in laparoscopy on subsequent urology practice patterns has not been assessed. Materials and Methods: Urologists completing their residency from 1977 through 1999 at Tulane University and the University of California-San Diego were sent anonymous questionnaires in September 2000. The questionnaires evaluated practice demographics, operative experience in laparoscopy during residency, and the role of laparoscopy in the urologist's current practice. Factors impacting the decision to perform or not perform laparoscopy were evaluated. Results: Sixty-one former residents (67%) responded to the questionnaire. Urologists were more likely to perform laparoscopic procedures if they had been trained during their residency (69%) than if they had no experience during residency (34%; p < 0.025). Intensity of laparoscopic experience in residency did not appear to correlate with ongoing practice, with 73% of residents having <15 cases during residency training continuing to perform laparoscopy compared with 67% of residents doing 15 to 80 laparoscopic cases. Urologists who had been trained in laparoscopy during residency cited the need for more training (47%) and inadequate case volume (47%) as reasons for not currently performing laparoscopy. Among those who had received residency training, the most common reasons given were inadequate case volume (61%) and increased operative time (57%). Conclusions: This survey suggests that laparoscopic procedures are more likely to be performed by physicians who have received training during residency. As the number of urologists who have been trained in laparoscopy during residency increases, shifts in practice patterns will continue to evolve, along with advances in urologic laparoscopy.