Survey of urological laparoscopic practices in the state of California

Ayal Kaynan, Keith L. Lee, Howard N. Winfield

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: In the interest of maintaining our surgical domain we performed a survey aimed at establishing laparoscopic practice patterns as they pertain to urological disease. Materials and Methods: Surveys were mailed to 2,902 surgeons in California who were listed with the American College of Surgeons, including 2,175 general surgeons, 510 urologists and 217 obstetricians-gynecologists. Results: A total of 442 complete responses (15.2%) were tallied. Of urologists and of nonurologists 54% and 11% performed no laparoscopy, while 12% and 80%, respectively, devoted at least 5% of their time to laparoscopic surgery. Urologists and nonurologists performing no laparoscopy were older than those performing a significant volume (p < 0.05). Of urologists 16% thought that they were trained adequately during residency to perform laparoscopic surgery compared with 30% of nonurologists. Of the urologists who performed hand assisted laparoscopy 50% tended to use it as a means of gaining familiarity with these techniques. These urologists performed more laparoscopic surgery than other urologists. While 80% of laparoscopy cases were community based, academic urologists are actively interested in laparoscopic surgery. The 2 most important reasons cited for performing laparoscopy were more rapid recovery and decreased morbidity. The leading laparoscopic procedures according to incidence for urologists performing laparoscopic surgery were diagnostic procedures (12.9%), varicocelectomy (12.1%), adrenalectomy (9.7%), pelvic lymphadenectomy (8.9%), and simple nephrectomy and renal cyst decortication (8.1% each). The leading laparoscopic cases according to the number of available cases per urologist were colposuspension-bladder neck suspension (1.06), donor nephrectomy (0.77), pelvic lymphadenectomy (0.52), varicocelectomy (0.48) and orchiopexy (0.45). Urologists performed more urological laparoscopy cases than nonurologists. Conclusions: Urological laparoscopic practice in California remains in its infancy. It is imperative that exposure should be increased in residency training programs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2380-2386
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume167
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Laparoscopy
Internship and Residency
Lymph Node Excision
Nephrectomy
Hand-Assisted Laparoscopy
Urologists
Surveys and Questionnaires
Orchiopexy
Urologic Diseases
Adrenalectomy
Cysts
Suspensions
Urinary Bladder
Tissue Donors
Morbidity
Kidney
Education
Incidence

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Urology

Cite this

Kaynan, Ayal ; Lee, Keith L. ; Winfield, Howard N. / Survey of urological laparoscopic practices in the state of California. In: Journal of Urology. 2002 ; Vol. 167, No. 6. pp. 2380-2386.
@article{80a1a8ae9b5046f8bc80a2db3c07e4b0,
title = "Survey of urological laparoscopic practices in the state of California",
abstract = "Purpose: In the interest of maintaining our surgical domain we performed a survey aimed at establishing laparoscopic practice patterns as they pertain to urological disease. Materials and Methods: Surveys were mailed to 2,902 surgeons in California who were listed with the American College of Surgeons, including 2,175 general surgeons, 510 urologists and 217 obstetricians-gynecologists. Results: A total of 442 complete responses (15.2{\%}) were tallied. Of urologists and of nonurologists 54{\%} and 11{\%} performed no laparoscopy, while 12{\%} and 80{\%}, respectively, devoted at least 5{\%} of their time to laparoscopic surgery. Urologists and nonurologists performing no laparoscopy were older than those performing a significant volume (p < 0.05). Of urologists 16{\%} thought that they were trained adequately during residency to perform laparoscopic surgery compared with 30{\%} of nonurologists. Of the urologists who performed hand assisted laparoscopy 50{\%} tended to use it as a means of gaining familiarity with these techniques. These urologists performed more laparoscopic surgery than other urologists. While 80{\%} of laparoscopy cases were community based, academic urologists are actively interested in laparoscopic surgery. The 2 most important reasons cited for performing laparoscopy were more rapid recovery and decreased morbidity. The leading laparoscopic procedures according to incidence for urologists performing laparoscopic surgery were diagnostic procedures (12.9{\%}), varicocelectomy (12.1{\%}), adrenalectomy (9.7{\%}), pelvic lymphadenectomy (8.9{\%}), and simple nephrectomy and renal cyst decortication (8.1{\%} each). The leading laparoscopic cases according to the number of available cases per urologist were colposuspension-bladder neck suspension (1.06), donor nephrectomy (0.77), pelvic lymphadenectomy (0.52), varicocelectomy (0.48) and orchiopexy (0.45). Urologists performed more urological laparoscopy cases than nonurologists. Conclusions: Urological laparoscopic practice in California remains in its infancy. It is imperative that exposure should be increased in residency training programs.",
author = "Ayal Kaynan and Lee, {Keith L.} and Winfield, {Howard N.}",
year = "2002",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64989-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "167",
pages = "2380--2386",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

Survey of urological laparoscopic practices in the state of California. / Kaynan, Ayal; Lee, Keith L.; Winfield, Howard N.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 167, No. 6, 01.01.2002, p. 2380-2386.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Survey of urological laparoscopic practices in the state of California

AU - Kaynan, Ayal

AU - Lee, Keith L.

AU - Winfield, Howard N.

PY - 2002/1/1

Y1 - 2002/1/1

N2 - Purpose: In the interest of maintaining our surgical domain we performed a survey aimed at establishing laparoscopic practice patterns as they pertain to urological disease. Materials and Methods: Surveys were mailed to 2,902 surgeons in California who were listed with the American College of Surgeons, including 2,175 general surgeons, 510 urologists and 217 obstetricians-gynecologists. Results: A total of 442 complete responses (15.2%) were tallied. Of urologists and of nonurologists 54% and 11% performed no laparoscopy, while 12% and 80%, respectively, devoted at least 5% of their time to laparoscopic surgery. Urologists and nonurologists performing no laparoscopy were older than those performing a significant volume (p < 0.05). Of urologists 16% thought that they were trained adequately during residency to perform laparoscopic surgery compared with 30% of nonurologists. Of the urologists who performed hand assisted laparoscopy 50% tended to use it as a means of gaining familiarity with these techniques. These urologists performed more laparoscopic surgery than other urologists. While 80% of laparoscopy cases were community based, academic urologists are actively interested in laparoscopic surgery. The 2 most important reasons cited for performing laparoscopy were more rapid recovery and decreased morbidity. The leading laparoscopic procedures according to incidence for urologists performing laparoscopic surgery were diagnostic procedures (12.9%), varicocelectomy (12.1%), adrenalectomy (9.7%), pelvic lymphadenectomy (8.9%), and simple nephrectomy and renal cyst decortication (8.1% each). The leading laparoscopic cases according to the number of available cases per urologist were colposuspension-bladder neck suspension (1.06), donor nephrectomy (0.77), pelvic lymphadenectomy (0.52), varicocelectomy (0.48) and orchiopexy (0.45). Urologists performed more urological laparoscopy cases than nonurologists. Conclusions: Urological laparoscopic practice in California remains in its infancy. It is imperative that exposure should be increased in residency training programs.

AB - Purpose: In the interest of maintaining our surgical domain we performed a survey aimed at establishing laparoscopic practice patterns as they pertain to urological disease. Materials and Methods: Surveys were mailed to 2,902 surgeons in California who were listed with the American College of Surgeons, including 2,175 general surgeons, 510 urologists and 217 obstetricians-gynecologists. Results: A total of 442 complete responses (15.2%) were tallied. Of urologists and of nonurologists 54% and 11% performed no laparoscopy, while 12% and 80%, respectively, devoted at least 5% of their time to laparoscopic surgery. Urologists and nonurologists performing no laparoscopy were older than those performing a significant volume (p < 0.05). Of urologists 16% thought that they were trained adequately during residency to perform laparoscopic surgery compared with 30% of nonurologists. Of the urologists who performed hand assisted laparoscopy 50% tended to use it as a means of gaining familiarity with these techniques. These urologists performed more laparoscopic surgery than other urologists. While 80% of laparoscopy cases were community based, academic urologists are actively interested in laparoscopic surgery. The 2 most important reasons cited for performing laparoscopy were more rapid recovery and decreased morbidity. The leading laparoscopic procedures according to incidence for urologists performing laparoscopic surgery were diagnostic procedures (12.9%), varicocelectomy (12.1%), adrenalectomy (9.7%), pelvic lymphadenectomy (8.9%), and simple nephrectomy and renal cyst decortication (8.1% each). The leading laparoscopic cases according to the number of available cases per urologist were colposuspension-bladder neck suspension (1.06), donor nephrectomy (0.77), pelvic lymphadenectomy (0.52), varicocelectomy (0.48) and orchiopexy (0.45). Urologists performed more urological laparoscopy cases than nonurologists. Conclusions: Urological laparoscopic practice in California remains in its infancy. It is imperative that exposure should be increased in residency training programs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036093666&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036093666&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64989-0

DO - 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64989-0

M3 - Article

VL - 167

SP - 2380

EP - 2386

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 6

ER -