Extirpative renal surgery volume in training: different roads to the (same?) destination
- 4 Downloads
To describe the overall extirpative renal surgery (ERS) training volume reported by PU and PS.
Case log data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) was examined from 2013–2016 for surgery residents (Sres), urology residents (Ures), pediatric surgery fellows (PSfel) and pediatric urology fellows (PUfel). Case log information for all levels of participation over all case categories that could potentially offer ERS volume were recorded. Volume was estimated using the mean number of included cases during residency and fellowship and the sum was used to estimate total training volume. Volume between groups was compared using the student’s t test.
Case logs were included for 4447 residents (4259 Sres, 840 Ures) and fellows (188 PSfel, 71 PUfel). Mean PU volume was 113.1, which was higher than the mean PS volume of 10.3 (p < 0.001). For PU, more ERS were performed during residency than fellowship (p < 0.001). For PS the opposite was true (p < 0.001). When examining fellow training only, PUfel performed more ERS than PSfel (11.7 vs. 7.0 p < 0.001).
While previous publications note similar short-term outcomes for ERS for malignancy for PU and PS, ERS case volume during training is significantly different. Review of recent ACGME data indicate that PU have more overall experience with ERS, with most gained during residency. Additionally, PUfel performed significantly more ERS than PSfel. Further study into how these training differences affect long-term outcomes is necessary.
KeywordsTraining Operative experience Nephrectomy Pediatric surgery Pediatric urology
Extirpative renal surgery
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education
Pediatric surgery fellows
Pediatric urology fellows
ML: data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. NC: protocol/project development, data collection, data analysis. RM: protocol/project development, data collection. AS: protocol/project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing.
Etkin Family Fund of the Aspen Community Foundation.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no competing interest.
This manuscript involves secondary analysis of de-identified registry data and thus IRB exemption was obtained.
No informed consent was obtained.
- 2.Suson KD, Wolfe-Christensen C, Elder JS, Lakshmanan Y (2015) Practice patterns and outcomes of pediatric partial nephrectomy in the United States: comparison between pediatric urology and general pediatric surgery. J Pediatr Urol 11:171.e1–171.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.04.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Cost NG, Aldrink JH, Saltzman AF et al (2018) Current state of renal tumor surgery among pediatric surgeons and pediatric urologists: a survey of American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) and Society for Pediatric Urology (SPU) members. J Pediatr Urol 14:168.e1–168.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2017.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Coburn M, Kogan B (2013) Minimum numbers of pediatric urology. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, 1 July 2013, https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramResources/480_Memo_Peds_Operative_Minimums.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2018
- 21.(2013) Case log information for urology programs. https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PDFs/480_National_Report_Program_Version_2015-2016.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2018
- 22.(2015) Defined category minimum numbers: pediatric surgery. https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PDFs/445_National_Report_Program_Version_2015-2016.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2018