Surgical and non-surgical education practices in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellowships within the United States

Data are scarce regarding surgical and non-surgical education in accredited Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) fellowships in theUnited States. We compared surgical and non-surgical and education among training programs and expected surgical comfort level with pelvic reconstructive procedures from the perspective of the fellow and program director. An online survey was distributed to program directors and fellows from the 39 accredited FPMRS fellowships at the time (2010). Domains evaluated in the survey were academic education requirements; surgical approaches to prolapse and to incontinence; other surgical procedures; and research and publication expectations. In total, forty fellows from 21 programs and directors from 27 programs. The most common surgical procedures performed for apical, anterior, and posterior prolapse were uterosacral ligament suspension, native tissue anterior colporrhaphy, and posterior colporrhaphy, respectively. Differences in perceived surgical comfort level were seen for coccygeus suspension, graftreinforced posterior colporrhaphy, rectus fascial sling, urethral bulking agent, cystoscopic ureteral stent placement and bowel repair. A greater proportion of program directors reported that fellows would be comfortable performing these procedures upon graduation than the proportion reported by the fellows themselves. Differences exist in FPMRS training nationwide, however, responding fellows appeared to be trained in multiple approaches to prolapse repair. Differences were seen in surgical comfort level as perceived by fellows and program directors.

[1]  C. Heisler Importance of adequate gross anatomy education: The impact of a structured pelvic anatomy course during gynecology fellowship , 2011, Anatomical sciences education.

[2]  E. Geller,et al.  Robotic surgical training program in gynecology: how to train residents and fellows. , 2011, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[3]  Marlies P Schijven,et al.  Implementation of simulation in surgical practice: Minimally invasive surgery has taken the lead: The Dutch experience , 2011, Medical teacher.

[4]  H Purdie,et al.  Assessing the surgical skills of trainees in the operating theatre: a prospective observational study of the methodology. , 2011, Health technology assessment.

[5]  H. Drutz,et al.  IUGA guidelines for training in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive pelvic surgery (FPM-RPS) , 2010, International Urogynecology Journal.

[6]  A. Berchuck,et al.  Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Gynecologic Procedures in a Fellowship Training Program , 2009, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[7]  M. Karram The future of surgical training in the field of urogynecology and female pelvic floor surgery , 2008, International Urogynecology Journal.

[8]  B. Goff Changing the paradigm in surgical education. , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  D. Fenner,et al.  How well are we training residents in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery? , 2008, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  R. Rogers,et al.  The state of residency training in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery , 2007, International Urogynecology Journal.

[11]  D. O'Sullivan,et al.  Resident education and training in urogynecology and pelvic reconstructive surgery: a survey , 2007, International Urogynecology Journal.

[12]  R. Rogers,et al.  Changing the way we train gynecologic surgeons. , 2006, Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America.

[13]  A. Walter,et al.  Surgical education for the twenty-first century: beyond the apprentice model. , 2006, Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America.

[14]  J. Blaivas,et al.  Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellowships , 2000, Neurourology and Urodynamics.