Presentation Authors: Christopher Loftus*, Niels Johnsen, Seattle, WA
Introduction: While the field of genitourinary reconstruction and trauma (GURT) is growing, the majority of urologists do not manage acute GU trauma patients in their practices. Our objective was to perform a needs-assessment regarding the current state of GU trauma exposure, training and interest amongst current urology residents.
Methods: A 15-item electronic survey was sent to all urology residency programs, requesting distribution of the survey to current residents within each program. Survey responses were collected and stored anonymously using the REDCap online software program. Responses were analyzed using Stata v13.1 (College Station, TX).
Results: 117 residents completed the survey, comprising trainees at all levels (U-1 to U-4) in all 8 sections of the AUA. 89 (76%) reported having a GURS or other dedicated GURT staff at their program and 104 (89%) reported rotating at a Level 1 hospital. 103 (88%) reported involvement in the management of GU trauma. While 87 (75%) reported primary management (both operative and nonoperative) of bladder injury patients, only 44 (38%) reported primary management of initial renal trauma patients. _x000D_
The majority of residents (59%) reported being either very or extremely interested in participating in GU trauma care during residency; however, only 28% reported being either very or extremely interested in doing the same following the completion of residency. While approximately 77% felt that obtaining appropriate training in GU trauma management (both operative and non-operative) during residency was very or extremely important, almost half of respondents (44%) felt that their training was not adequate to prepare them for their future career after residency. Anticipated post-training career path was not associated with resident opinions on interest, importance or adequacy of GU trauma training. Residents from programs with GURT staff were more likely to view GU trauma cases as very or extremely important in residency (p=0.009).
Conclusions: While there is variability in resident exposure to GU trauma, the majority of responding residents reported strong interests in and perceived benefit from GU trauma training during residency, regardless of career path. While GU trauma at many institutions has spread to the domain of general trauma surgeons, urology program directors should work to maintain an active presence for the benefit of resident education.