Literature DB >> 11992042

Survey of urological laparoscopic practices in the state of California.

Ayal M Kaynan1, Keith L Lee, Howard N Winfield.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In the interest of maintaining our surgical domain we performed a survey aimed at establishing laparoscopic practice patterns as they pertain to urological disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surveys were mailed to 2,902 surgeons in California who were listed with the American College of Surgeons, including 2,175 general surgeons, 510 urologists and 217 obstetricians-gynecologists.
RESULTS: A total of 442 complete responses (15.2%) were tallied. Of urologists and of nonurologists 54% and 11% performed no laparoscopy, while 12% and 80%, respectively, devoted at least 5% of their time to laparoscopic surgery. Urologists and nonurologists performing no laparoscopy were older than those performing a significant volume (p < 0.05). Of urologists 16% thought that they were trained adequately during residency to perform laparoscopic surgery compared with 30% of nonurologists. Of the urologists who performed hand assisted laparoscopy, 50% tended to use it as a means of gaining familiarity with these techniques. These urologists performed more laparoscopic surgery than other urologists. While 80% of laparoscopy cases were community based, academic urologists are actively interested in laparoscopic surgery. The 2 most important reasons cited for performing laparoscopy were more rapid recovery and decreased morbidity. The leading laparoscopic procedures according to incidence for urologists performing laparoscopic surgery were diagnostic procedures (12.9%), varicocelectomy (12.1%), adrenalectomy (9.7%), pelvic lymphadenectomy (8.9%), and simple nephrectomy and renal cyst decortication (8.1% each). The leading laparoscopic cases according to the number of available cases per urologist were colposuspension-bladder neck suspension (1.06), donor nephrectomy (0.77), pelvic lymphadenectomy (0.52), varicocelectomy (0.48) and orchiopexy (0.45). Urologists performed more urological laparoscopy cases than nonurologists.
CONCLUSIONS: Urological laparoscopic practice in California remains in its infancy. It is imperative that exposure should be increased in residency training programs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11992042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  5 in total

1.  [Comments on nephrectomy - laparoscopic versus robotic].

Authors:  H Riedmiller
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Variations in reconstruction after radical cystectomy.

Authors:  John L Gore; Christopher S Saigal; Jan M Hanley; Matthias Schonlau; Mark S Litwin
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Pattern of management of urologic cancer in Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  Khalid Al-Othman; Naif Al-Hathal
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2010-01

4.  A prospective comparison of laparoscopic and robotic radical nephrectomy for T1-2N0M0 renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Ashok K Hemal; Anup Kumar
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Expert videotape analysis and critiquing benefit laparoscopic skills training of urologists.

Authors:  Stephen Y Nakada; Sean P Hedican; Jay T Bishoff; Steven J Shichman; J Stuart Wolf
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2004 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.