PURPOSE: The international meeting on reconstructive Urology (IMORU) is a live surgery event (LSE) where expert surgeons perform various reconstructive surgeries. To evaluate patient safety, an extended follow-up of the complications of two subsequent IMORU meetings were gathered. Also, a detailed survey concerning the participant's assessment of the educational benefit was performed. METHODS: All patients that were operated during the IMORU V and VI were included. Primary endpoint was the analysis of complications. Outcome was reviewed 36 months postoperatively via telephone survey and clinical database assessment, registrating any complications. At IMORU VII all participants were able to participate in a survey using a standardized, not-validated questionnaire concerning the learning effect and the quality of the surgeries. RESULTS: 57 operations by 32 different surgeons were reviewed. The total number of any complications (peri- or postoperative) was n = 9 (15.8%) with three major complications. Four (7%) perioperative complications and five (8.8%) postoperative complications were noted. The Charlson score proved to be the only significant recorded predictor of the incidence of any complication (p = 0.019; univariate logistic regression analysis). Participant survey showed that the surgeons, surgical technique, and surgical presentation were perceived as excellent. Improvement of knowledge and of the surgical armamentarium both received positive ratings. CONCLUSIONS: This is to our knowledge the first follow-up of LSE in the field of reconstructive urology. Rate of complications in general was acceptable. The performed survey showed participants value the quality and the educational benefit. Further studies are needed to improve learning possibilities.
PURPOSE: The international meeting on reconstructive Urology (IMORU) is a live surgery event (LSE) where expert surgeons perform various reconstructive surgeries. To evaluate patient safety, an extended follow-up of the complications of two subsequent IMORU meetings were gathered. Also, a detailed survey concerning the participant's assessment of the educational benefit was performed. METHODS: All patients that were operated during the IMORU V and VI were included. Primary endpoint was the analysis of complications. Outcome was reviewed 36 months postoperatively via telephone survey and clinical database assessment, registrating any complications. At IMORU VII all participants were able to participate in a survey using a standardized, not-validated questionnaire concerning the learning effect and the quality of the surgeries. RESULTS: 57 operations by 32 different surgeons were reviewed. The total number of any complications (peri- or postoperative) was n = 9 (15.8%) with three major complications. Four (7%) perioperative complications and five (8.8%) postoperative complications were noted. The Charlson score proved to be the only significant recorded predictor of the incidence of any complication (p = 0.019; univariate logistic regression analysis). Participant survey showed that the surgeons, surgical technique, and surgical presentation were perceived as excellent. Improvement of knowledge and of the surgical armamentarium both received positive ratings. CONCLUSIONS: This is to our knowledge the first follow-up of LSE in the field of reconstructive urology. Rate of complications in general was acceptable. The performed survey showed participants value the quality and the educational benefit. Further studies are needed to improve learning possibilities.
Entities:
Keywords:
IMORU; Live surgery events; Reconstructive urology; Surgical education
Authors: Walter Artibani; Vincenzo Ficarra; Ben J Challacombe; Clement-Claude Abbou; Jens Bedke; Rafael Boscolo-Berto; Maurizio Brausi; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Serdar Deger; Louis Denis; Giorgio Guazzoni; Bertrand Guillonneau; John P F A Heesakkers; Didier Jacqmin; Thomas Knoll; Luis Martínez-Piñeiro; Francesco Montorsi; Alexander Mottrie; Pierre-Thierry Piechaud; Abhay Rane; Jens Rassweiler; Arnulf Stenzl; Jeroen Van Moorselaar; Roland F Van Velthoven; Hendrik van Poppel; Manfred Wirth; Per-Anders Abrahamsson; Keith F Parsons Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jeffrey K Mullins; Michael S Borofsky; Mohamad E Allaf; Sam Bhayani; Jihad H Kaouk; Craig G Rogers; Shahab P Hillyer; Bartosz F Kaczmarek; Youssef S Tanagho; Michael D Stifelman Journal: Urology Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Shahid A A Khan; Richard T M Chang; Kamran Ahmed; Thomas Knoll; Roland van Velthoven; Ben Challacombe; Prokar Dasgupta; Abhay Rane Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jaap D Legemate; Stefano P Zanetti; Joyce Baard; Guido M Kamphuis; Emanuele Montanari; Olivier Traxer; Jean Jmch de la Rosette Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Roland Dahlem; Christian P Meyer; Victor M Schuettfort; Tim A Ludwig; Phillip Marks; Malte W Vetterlein; Valentin Maurer; Constantin Fuehner; Florian Janisch; Armin Soave; Michael Rink; Silke Riechardt; Oliver Engel; Margit Fisch Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 4.226