INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has not been adopted as rapidly or widely in Canada as in the U.S. In 2011, Canadian urology residents felt that RAS represented an expanding field that could potentially negatively impact their training. We re-evaluate trainee exposure and attitudes to RAS in Canadian residency training five years later. METHODS: All Canadian urology residents were asked to participate in an online survey designed to assess current resident exposure to and perception of RAS. RESULTS: The response rate was 39% (61/157). Seventy-seven percent of residents reported being involved in at least one RAS procedure (52% in 2011), and the majority had exposure to <10 cases. For those in hospitals with access to RAS, 96% desired more console time, while only 50% of those without access wanted more console experience. Of all residents, 50% felt that RAS will become the gold standard in certain urological surgeries (34% in 2011), but only 28% felt that RAS would play an increasingly important role in urology (59% in 2011). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in exposure to RAS in residency programs over the past five years, console experience remains limited. Although these residents desire more access to RAS, many voice uncertainty of the role of RAS in Canada. We cannot conclude whether RAS is perceived by residents to be beneficial or detrimental to their training nationwide. Moving forward in the robotic era, it will be important to either modify residency curricula to address RAS experience or to limit RAS to fellowship training.
INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has not been adopted as rapidly or widely in Canada as in the U.S. In 2011, Canadian urology residents felt that RAS represented an expanding field that could potentially negatively impact their training. We re-evaluate trainee exposure and attitudes to RAS in Canadian residency training five years later. METHODS: All Canadian urology residents were asked to participate in an online survey designed to assess current resident exposure to and perception of RAS. RESULTS: The response rate was 39% (61/157). Seventy-seven percent of residents reported being involved in at least one RAS procedure (52% in 2011), and the majority had exposure to <10 cases. For those in hospitals with access to RAS, 96% desired more console time, while only 50% of those without access wanted more console experience. Of all residents, 50% felt that RAS will become the gold standard in certain urological surgeries (34% in 2011), but only 28% felt that RAS would play an increasingly important role in urology (59% in 2011). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in exposure to RAS in residency programs over the past five years, console experience remains limited. Although these residents desire more access to RAS, many voice uncertainty of the role of RAS in Canada. We cannot conclude whether RAS is perceived by residents to be beneficial or detrimental to their training nationwide. Moving forward in the robotic era, it will be important to either modify residency curricula to address RAS experience or to limit RAS to fellowship training.