Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 246   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 412-417

Laparoscopy training status in India and a review of the current resident skill standards


1 Department of Urology, NU Hospitals, Bangalore, India
2 Department of Urology, Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital, New Delhi, India
3 Department of Urology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India
4 Department of Urology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospitals, New Delhi, India
5 Department of Urology, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, India
6 Department of Urology, Virinchi Hospitals, Hyderabad, India
7 Department of Urology, M.S. Ramiah Hospitals, Bangalore, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. T Krishna Prasad
NU Hospitals, # 4/1, West of Chord Road, Near to ISKCON, Rajajinagar, Bangalore - 560 010, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_135_20

Rights and Permissions

Context: The aim was to identify the current training standard of laparoscopy skills among the urology residents. Aims: This paper presents the residents' subjective perception of their laparoscopy skills and evidence of an objective assessment of their actual skills. Settings and Design: An online survey was mailed, and completed by urology residents in training. The residents' perception of laparoscopy training received, exposure to laparoscopy procedures, and training facilities were queried. The assessment was done on the skill levels of the residents presenting at an annual training program. Subjects and Methods: 103 residents responded to the online survey and 115 residents were assessed at the training program. Statistical Analysis Used: Discrete data were compared using the t-test to test for significance of the means; P < 0.05 was considered significant. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to obtain the relationship between variables. Results: An overwhelming 91% rated their laparoscopy skill as just “satisfactory” or worse, and 60% did not have any training facilities in their department. 66% continue to be “assistants only” in conventional laparoscopy surgeries. Assessment of basic laparoscopy skills in the dry lab revealed 92% of residents having poor laparoscopy skills; similar to the subjective opinion in the survey. Only 6% (n = 5) of the residents showed a good or better skill score in the dry lab; similar to the survey. Conclusions: Based on the survey, a large number of residents have a poor opinion of their own laparoscopy skills, and the training facilities available to them. The data objectively prove the self-assessment of the residents on their laparoscopy skill level.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed492    
    Printed19    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded29    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal