DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20211272

Impact of residents’ involvement in urological surgeries: a systematic review

Wedyan Salem Basaif, Faisal Abdulaziz Almukhlifi, Abdulhadi Turki Alsubaie, Ali Mohammed Alzarqa, Ahmed Abdulsalam Alsaedi, Bader Hamdi Binyousef, Awnallah Saud Alotaibi, Ahmed Awad Mobaraki, Abdulrahman Mohammed Alghamdi, Ahmad Aboukhshaba, Tamer Mohammed Mahjari, Jehad Nabeel Qutub

Abstract


Many investigations have reported the impact of resident involvement in urological surgeries. We aimed to conduct this systematic review to create enough evidence regarding this impact based on the outcomes obtained from the relevant studies. We have performed both manual and electronic search through many databases like Google Scholar, Web of science, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane library, the international standard randomised controlled trial number registry, and the world health organization virtual health library to obtain all the relevant citations. Our intended outcomes included the risk of developing complications, operative time, and rate of reoperations. We have included 17 studies that reported the impact of residents’ involvement in urological surgical operations. while some studies reported some complications, the risk of developing complications was not significantly associated with residents' involvement according to most studies. Only one study reported that complications were significantly associated with residents’ involvement. The rate of reoperation and readmission after the primary surgery was also non-significant. On the other hand, most of the included studies showed that residents’ involvement was significantly associated with increased hospital stay and prolonged operative time. Our results indicate the residents’ involvement does not impact the overall safety of the urological procedures and that this practice should be encouraged with adequate supervision.

 


Keywords


Urology, Residents, Impact, Involvement, Surgery

Full Text:

PDF

References


Schnapp BH, Caretta-Weyer HA, Cortez E. Curated Collections for Clinician Educators: Five Key Papers on Graduated Responsibility in Residency Education. Cureus. 2019;11(4):e4383.

Teman NR, Gauger PG, Mullan PB, Tarpley JL, Minter RM. Entrustment of general surgery residents in the operating room: factors contributing to provision of resident autonomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(4):778-87.

Curet MJ. Resident work hour restrictions: where are we now? J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(5):767-76.

Education ACfGM. Common Program Requirements. 2019; https://www.acgme.org/What-We-Do/Accreditation/Common-Program-Requirements. Accessed February 20, 2021.

Elfenbein DM. Confidence crisis among general surgery residents: a systematic review and qualitative discourse analysis. JAMA surgery. 2016;151(12):1166-75.

Coleman JJ, Esposito TJ, Rozycki GS, Feliciano DV. Early Subspecialization and Perceived Competence in Surgical Training: Are Residents Ready? J Am College Surg. 2013;216(4):764-71.

Rosen GH, Murray KS, Greene KL, Pruthi RS, Richstone L, Mirza M. Effect of COVID-19 on urology residency training: a nationwide survey of program directors by the Society of Academic Urologists. The J Urol. 2020;204(5):1039-45.

Matulewicz RS, Pilecki M, Rambachan A, Kim JYS, Kundu SD. Impact of Resident Involvement on Urological Surgery Outcomes: An Analysis of 40,000 Patients from the ACS NSQIP Database. J Urol. 2014;192(3):885-90.

Allard CB, Meyer CP, Gandaglia G. The Effect of Resident Involvement on Perioperative Outcomes in Transurethral Urologic Surgeries. J Surg Education. 2015;72(5):1018-25.

Lim S, Parsa AT, Kim BD, Rosenow JM, Kim JY. Impact of resident involvement in neurosurgery: an analysis of 8748 patients from the 2011 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. J neurosur. 2015;122(4):962-70.

Meyer CP, Hanske J, Friedlander DF. The Impact of Resident Involvement in Male One-stage Anterior Urethroplasties. Urology. 2015;85(4):937-41.

Löppenberg B, Cheng PJ, Speed JM. The Effect of Resident Involvement on Surgical Outcomes for Common Urologic Procedures: A Case Study of Uni- and Bilateral Hydrocele Repair. Urology. 2016;94:70-6.

Ruhotina N, Dagenais J, Gandaglia G, et al. The impact of resident involvement in minimally-invasive urologic oncology procedures. Canad Urological Asso j. 2014;8(9-10):334-40.

Duchene DA, Rosso F, Clayman R. Current minimally invasive practice patterns among postgraduate urologists. J Endourol. 1797;25:2011.

Schommer E, Tonkovich K, Li Z, Thiel DD. Impact of Resident Involvement on Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes. J Endourol. 2016;30(10):1126-31.

Lee Z, Lightfoot AJ, Mucksavage P, Lee DI. Can robot-assisted radical prostatectomy be taught to chief residents and fellows without affecting operative outcomes? Prostate Int. 2015;3(2):47-50.

Roghmann F, Ravi P, Hanske J. Perioperative outcomes after radical cystectomy at NCI-designated centres: Are they any better? Canad Urological Association j. 2015;9(5-6):207-12.

McMillan DT, Viera AJ, Matthews J. Resident involvement and experience do not affect perioperative complications following robotic prostatectomy. World urol. 2015;33(6):793-9.

Baber J, Staff I, McLaughlin T. Impact of Urology Resident Involvement on intraoperative, Long-Term Oncologic and Functional Outcomes of Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Urology. 2019;132:43-8.

Schommer E, Tonkovich K, Li Z, Thiel DD. Impact of Resident Involvement on Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes. J Endourol. 2016;30(10):1126-31.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.

Matulewicz RS, Pilecki M, Rambachan A, Kim JY, Kundu SD. Newcastle- Ottawa: Quality assessment scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. Impact of resident involvement on urological surgery outcomes: an analysis of 40,000 patients from the ACS NSQIP database. J Urol. 2014;192(3):885-90.

Meyer CP, Hanske J, Friedlander DF. The impact of resident involvement in male one-stage anterior urethroplasties. Urology. 2015;85(4):937-41.

Vetterlein MW, Seisen T, Löppenberg B. Resident Involvement in Radical Inguinal Orchiectomy for Testicular Cancer Does Not Adversely Impact Perioperative Outcomes-A Retrospective Study. Urologia int. 2017;98(4):472-7.

Yip W, Vij SC, Li J, Samplaski MK. The effect of trainee involvement on surgical outcomes and complications of male infertility surgical procedures. Andrologia. 2020;52(9):e13719.

Privé B, Kortleve M, van Basten JP. Evaluating the impact of resident involvement during the laparoscopic nephrectomy. Central Eur j urol. 2019;72(4):369-73.

Allard CB, Meyer CP, Gandaglia G. The Effect of Resident Involvement on Perioperative Outcomes in Transurethral Urologic Surgeries. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(5):1018-25.

Del Rosso A, Masciovecchio S, Paradiso Galatioto G, Vicentini C. Resident training in urology: bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate - a safe method in learning endoscopic surgical procedure. Archivio italiano di urologia, andrologia. 2013;85(2):78-81.

Herrick BW, Yap RL. It is safe to teach residents laser prostate surgery in the private practice setting. Urology. 2013;81(3):629-32.

Ku TS, Kane CJ, Sen S, Henderson WG, Dudley RA, Cason BA. Effects of hospital procedure volume and resident training on clinical outcomes and resource use in radical retropubic prostatectomy surgery in the Department of Veterans Affairs. J Urol. 2008;179(1):272-8.

Holland BC, Patel N, Sulaver R. Resident Impact on Patient & Surgeon Satisfaction and Outcomes: Evidence for Health System Support for Urology Education. Urology. 2019;132:49-55.

Aisen CM, James M, Chung DE. The Impact of Teaching on Fundamental General Urologic Procedures: Do Residents Help or Hurt? Urology. 2018;121:44-50.

Kern SQ, Lustik MB, McMann LP, Thibault GP, Sterbis JR. Comparison of outcomes after minimally invasive versus open partial nephrectomy with respect to trainee involvement utilizing the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Endourol. 2014;28(1):40-7.

Löppenberg B, Cheng PJ, Speed JM. The Effect of Resident Involvement on Surgical Outcomes for Common Urologic Procedures: A Case Study of Uni- and Bilateral Hydrocele Repair. Urology. 2016;94:70-6.

Nguyen CT, Hernandez AV, Gao T, Thomas AA, Jones JS. Office based vasectomy can be performed by supervised urological residents with patient pain and morbidity comparable to those of a staff surgeon procedure. J Urol. 2008;180(4):1451-4.

Nieder AM, Meinbach DS, Kim SS, Soloway MS. Transurethral bladder tumor resection: intraoperative and postoperative complications in a residency setting. J Urol. 2005;174(6):2307-9.

McAbee KE, Pearlman AM, Terlecki RP. Infection following penile prosthesis placement at an academic training center remains low despite involvement of surgeons-in-training. Investigative clin urol. 2018;59(5):342-7.

Bougie O, Zuckerman SL, Switzer N, How J, Sey M. Influence of Resident Involvement in Obstetrics and Gynaecology Surgery on Surgical Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J obstetr gynaecol Canad. 2018;40(9):1170-7.

Baisiwala S, Shlobin NA, Cloney MB, Dahdaleh NS. Impact of Resident Participation During Surgery on Neurosurgical Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. World neurosurgery. 2020;142:1-12.

Pycha A, Lodde M, Lusuardi L. Teaching transurethral resection of the bladder: still a challenge? Urology. 2003;62(1):46-8.