Premium
An assessment of urologists’ training and knowledge of energy‐based surgical devices
Author(s) -
Lehman Daniel S.,
Phillips Courtney K.,
Hruby Gregory W.,
Lambert Sarah,
Landman Jaime
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2008.07599.x
Subject(s) - respondent , medicine , demographics , computer assisted web interviewing , family medicine , medical education , urology , demography , marketing , sociology , political science , law , business
OBJECTIVE To assess surgeons’ training and current understanding of existing energy‐based surgical instrumentation (ESI), we disseminated an online questionnaire to urology residents, fellows and attending urologists. SUBJECTS AND METHODS A two part 24‐question survey was disseminated to 1000 urology residents, fellows and attending physicians. The first part of the questionnaire assessed the respondents’ demographics and education about ESI; the second part evaluated the respondent’s knowledge of surgical energy methods and ESI, and was stratified into nine basic‐ and six advanced‐knowledge questions. RESULTS In all, 136 people (13.6%) viewed the survey and it was completed by 63 (6.3%). Respondents comprised 27 (43%) attending physicians, 14 (22%) minimally‐invasive urology fellows and 22 (35%) urology residents. Among participants, 41 (64%) had received no formal didactic training on ESI, and a further 14% of respondents’ didactic experience was limited to one lecture. Of the respondents, 70% said that monopolar energy was the mode most often used in surgery. Overall, the participants correctly answered 41% of the questions. Of the nine questions classified as ‘basic’ knowledge, respondents correctly answered 49%. Of the six questions classified as ‘advanced’ knowledge, 29% were answered correctly. The highest percentage score was obtained by the attending urologists, with a mean (range) score of 41 (29–86)%, followed by the fellows, with a mean score of 39.5 (29–57)%, and then the residents, at 34 (14–64)%. CONCLUSION Despite widespread and growing use of ESI, there is currently minimal formal training on energy modes and current energy devices being provided to urological surgeons. Both practising and training urologists have a limited understanding of surgical energy modes and of existing ESI.