Urology practice patterns after residency training in radical perineal prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of residency training in radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) on subsequent use of RPP in urology practice.

METHODS

Urologists who completed residency training at Tulane University and the University of California, San Diego, Medical Center from 1977 to 1999 were surveyed by anonymous questionnaire for their practice demographics, operative experience in RPP during residency, the role of RPP in their current practice, and the reasons they do or do not perform RPP.

RESULTS

Of 91 former residents, 61 (67%) responded. RPP was in current use by 41% of the urologists trained in RPP during residency and by 13% of those with no residency RPP training. Those who had performed 10 or more RPPs during residency reported a higher rate of current RPP use (53%) than did those who had performed fewer than 10 RPPs during residency (21%). Urologists trained in RPP during residency cited partner preference (28%) and inadequate exposure (26%) as reasons they did not perform RPP; respondents with no residency RPP training cited inadequate exposure (25%), difficulty of the operation (25%), and time required to perform the operation (25%).

CONCLUSIONS

A urologist with residency training in RPP is more likely to perform RPP in practice than is a urologist without such training. The intensity of training, in the form of greater operative experience during residency, had a positive impact on the future use of this specialized surgical technique.