ESRU-ESU-YAU_UROTECH Survey on Urology Residents Surgical Training: Are We Ready for Simulation and a Standardized Program?

Background: Currently, the landscape of surgical training is undergoing rapid evolution, marked by the initial implementation of standardized surgical training programs, which are further facilitated by the emergence of new technologies. However, this proliferation is uneven across various countries and hospitals. Objective: To offer a comprehensive overview of the existing surgical training programs throughout Europe, with a specific focus on the accessibility of simulation resources and standardized surgical programs. Design setting and participants: A dedicated survey was designed and spread in May 2022 via the European Association of Urology (EAU) mail list, to Young Urologist Office (YUO), Junior membership, European Urology Residents Education Program participants between 2014 and 2022, and other urologists under 40 yr, and via the EAU Newsletter. Intervention: A 64-item, online-based survey in accordance with the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) using the platform of Survey Monkey (Portland, OR, USA) was realized. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The study involved an assessment of the demographic characteristics. Additionally, it explored the type of center, availability of various surgical approaches, presence of training infrastructure, participation in courses, organization of training, and participants' satisfaction with the training program. The level of satisfaction was evaluated using a Likert-5 scale. The subsequent sections delved into surgical training within the realms of open, laparoscopic, robotic, and endoscopic surgery, each explored separately. Finally, the investigation encompassed the presence of a structured training course and the availability of a duly validated final evaluation process. Results and limitations: There were 375 responders with a completion rate of 82%. Among them, 75% were identified as male, 50.6% were young urologists, 31.7% were senior residents, and 17.6% were junior residents. A significant majority of participants (69.6%) were affiliated with academic centers. Regarding the presence of dry lab training facilities, only 50.3% of respondents indicated its availability. Among these centers, 46.7% were primarily focused on laparoscopy training. The availability of virtual and wet lab training centers was even more limited, with rates of 31.5% and 16.2%, respectively. Direct patient involvement was reported in 80.5% of cases for open surgery, 58.8% for laparoscopy, 25.0% for robotics, and 78.6% for endourology. It is worth noting that in <25% of instances, training followed a well-defined standardized program comprising both preclinical and clinical modular phases. Finally, the analysis of participant feedback showed that 49.7% of respondents expressed a satisfaction rating of either 4 or 5 points with respect to the training program. The limitations of our study include the low response rate, predominance of participants from academic centers, and absence of responses from individuals not affiliated with the EAU network. Conclusions: The current distribution of surgical training centers falls short of ensuring widespread access to standardized training programs. Although dry lab facilities are relatively well spread, the availability of wet lab resources remains restricted. Additionally, it appears that many trainees' initial exposure to surgery occurs directly with patients. There is a pressing need for continued endeavors to establish uniform training routes and assessment techniques across various surgical methodologies. Patient summary: Nowadays, the surgical training landscape is heterogeneous across different countries. The implementation of a standardized training methodology to enhance the overall quality of surgical training and thereby improving patient outcomes is needed.