BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has been rapidly adopted in urology, especially in the United States. Although less prevalent in Canada, RAS is a growing and controversial field that has implications for resident training. We report on the status and perception of RAS among Canadian urology residents. METHODS: : All Canadian urology residents from anglophone programs were contacted by email and asked to participate in an online survey. Current resident exposure to, and perception of, RAS was assessed. RESULTS: : Of the residents contacted (n = 128), 50 (39%) completed the survey. Of the respondents, 52% have been involved in RAS. Those who have not been involved in RAS express lower interest and lesser knowledge of RAS. Ninety-two percent of respondents feel the use of RAS will increase, although only 29% feel this is feasible in Canada. Just 24% and 36% feel RAS to be superior to open and laparoscopic techniques, respectively. Sixty-eight percent of residents in programs with a robot viewed it as detrimental to training, whereas 81% of residents in programs without one viewed its absence to either have no impact, or even be beneficial. Both groups expressed a desire for more experience with RAS. CONCLUSION: : The resident experience with respect to RAS is mixed. Overall, residents view RAS as an expanding field with potentially negative impacts on their present training, although they appear to desire the acquisition of more experience in RAS. We plan to monitor the evolution of these perceptions over next four years.
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has been rapidly adopted in urology, especially in the United States. Although less prevalent in Canada, RAS is a growing and controversial field that has implications for resident training. We report on the status and perception of RAS among Canadian urology residents. METHODS: : All Canadian urology residents from anglophone programs were contacted by email and asked to participate in an online survey. Current resident exposure to, and perception of, RAS was assessed. RESULTS: : Of the residents contacted (n = 128), 50 (39%) completed the survey. Of the respondents, 52% have been involved in RAS. Those who have not been involved in RAS express lower interest and lesser knowledge of RAS. Ninety-two percent of respondents feel the use of RAS will increase, although only 29% feel this is feasible in Canada. Just 24% and 36% feel RAS to be superior to open and laparoscopic techniques, respectively. Sixty-eight percent of residents in programs with a robot viewed it as detrimental to training, whereas 81% of residents in programs without one viewed its absence to either have no impact, or even be beneficial. Both groups expressed a desire for more experience with RAS. CONCLUSION: : The resident experience with respect to RAS is mixed. Overall, residents view RAS as an expanding field with potentially negative impacts on their present training, although they appear to desire the acquisition of more experience in RAS. We plan to monitor the evolution of these perceptions over next four years.
Authors: Harry W Donias; Raffy L Karamanoukian; Philip L Glick; Jacob Bergsland; Hratch L Karamanoukian Journal: Am Surg Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Yatin R Patel; Harry W Donias; Douglas W Boyd; Ravi U Pande; Jeffery L Amodeo; Raffy L Karamanoukian; Giuseppe D'Ancona; Hratch L Karamanoukian Journal: Am Surg Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Mark A Preston; Brian D M Blew; Rodney H Breau; Darren Beiko; Stuart J Oake; J D Watterson Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Jennifer Locke; Michael Robinson; Andrew MacNeily; S Larry Goldenberg; Peter C Black Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 1.862