Survey of Microsurgery Training Availability in US Urology Residency Programs

Abstract

Purpose: The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) establishes surgical minimum numbers of cases for urologic training. Currently there is not a requirement for microsurgery, likely from a belief that programs do not offer exposure. In an effort to evaluate the availability of microsurgery training among urology residency programs we surveyed the programs. Materials and Methods: We obtained a list of the 138 ACGME-accredited urology residencies and contact information the American Urology Association (AUA). We contacted the residency programs by phone and e-mail. For programs that did not reply, we performed a search of the program website. We answered 3-questions to assess resident subspecialty training in microsurgery and used penile implant and artificial urinary sphincters as a comparison. Data are reported as frequencies. Results: We obtained data from 134 programs (97.1%). A total of 104 programs (77.6%) had fellowship-trained physicians for training in microsurgery, 86.6% for penile implants, and 88.8% for artificial urinary sphincters. The percentage of fellowshiptrained microsurgeons per program did not vary significantly when comparing the different sections of the AUA. The northeast and southeast sections had the lowest percentage (67% and 68%). Conclusions: Nearly 80% of urology residency programs have a fellowship-trained microsurgeon on faculty, we therefore believe that microsurgery should be added as part of the ACGME minimums. In order to provide an equal exposure to all graduating urology residents, urology residency programs that lack microsurgery should identify potential faculty with fellowship training.

Keywords

• andrology
• infertility
• microsurgery
• residency
• training techniques