Trends in Urology Residents' Exposure to Operative Urotrauma: A Survey of Residency Program Directors

ObjectiveTo determine longitudinal trends in resident exposure to urotrauma and to assess whether presence of Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgeon (GURS) faculty has impacted exposure and career choice.MethodsAn identical, 31-question multiple-choice survey was sent to program directors of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited urology residency programs in 2006 and 2013. The areas of focus included program demographics, extent of urotrauma exposure, program director perceptions regarding educational value of urotrauma, and impact of GURS fellowship trained faculty. Responses were de-identified, compiled, and compared for differences.ResultsResponse rates were 57% (64/112) and 43% (53/123) for the 2006 and 2013 survey, respectively (P = .03). Trauma Level 1 designation (56/64 [89%] vs 44/53 [88%], P = .84) and presence of GURS faculty (22/64 [34%] vs 22/53 [43%], P = .43) were similar between survey periods. Although survey respondents felt urotrauma volume had remained constant (34/64 [53%] vs 30/53 [56%], P = .71), more recent respondents reported that conservative management strategies negatively impacted resident exposure (14/64 [22%] vs 23/53 [43%], P = .01). Residencies with GURS faculty in 2013 (22/53, 42%) were positively associated with residents publishing urotrauma literature (9/22 [41%] vs 4/31 [13%], P = .02), the presence of multidisciplinary trauma and urology conferences (3/22 [14%] vs 0/31 [0%], P = .03), and residents matriculating to GURS fellowships (15/22 [68%] vs 10/31 [32%], P = .009).ConclusionMany contemporary urology residencies report poor resident exposure to urotrauma during training. Although presence of GURS faculty may influence resident career choice, additional strategies may be warranted to expose residents to urotrauma during training.