Laparoscopic Surgical Training: Effectiveness and Impact on Urological Surgical Practice Patterns

Abstract

Urological interest in laparoscopic surgical techniques has dramatically increased during the last several years. However, the extent to which these methods are being used and the impact of training courses on clinical use are unclear. We assessed urologist practice patterns subsequent to a formal training course in urological laparoscopic surgery. On 5 dates between January and October 1991, a total of 163 urologists participated in a 2-day, university sponsored, laparoscopic surgery training seminar. Instruction consisted of 8 hours of didactic lectures including 2 live video cases, 4.5 hours of simulation and 4.5 hours in a live animal laboratory. Three months after the course the participants were mailed a questionnaire inquiring as to the interval laparoscopic surgery experience. Practice demographics, additional training, equipment availability, number of laparoscopic surgery candidates identified, percentage of overall surgical case load, patient inquiries, cases performed and complications were assessed by the questionnaire. Descriptive and correlative information was then derived from the data set. A total of 105 course participants (64%) responded to the questionnaire and 64 had engaged in some form of additional training following the course. During the 3 months since course completion respondents had identified an average of 4 candidates for laparoscopic surgery, which represented a mean of 2.5% of the total case load. Specific patient inquiries averaged less than 1 per physician within 3 months. During this same interval respondents had performed a total of 156 laparoscopic procedures (1.7 per urologist). Of the participants 45% had not performed their first case and 32% had performed more than 1 laparoscopic procedure. A total of 11 complications was reported (7.2%) and in 7 instances the surgeon was required to convert to an open approach. Veress needle placement was perceived as the most difficult aspect of the technique (22% of the respondents). Training subsequent to the course was the best predictor of clinical use. Of those who responded 88% believed that their future use of laparoscopy would increase. This survey suggests that subsequent to training, laparoscopic techniques are being rapidly and safely used by urologists. However, in the current state of development the impact of laparoscopic surgery on global urological practice patterns appears to be small.