THE CURRENT LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT OF UROLOGICAL TRAINEES AND FACULTY IN CLINICAL KIDNEY-TRANSPLANTATION IN THE UNITED-STATES AND CANADA

Citation
Sm. Flechner et Ac. Novick, THE CURRENT LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT OF UROLOGICAL TRAINEES AND FACULTY IN CLINICAL KIDNEY-TRANSPLANTATION IN THE UNITED-STATES AND CANADA, The Journal of urology, 157(4), 1997, pp. 1223-1225
Citations number
3
Categorie Soggetti
Urology & Nephrology
Journal title
ISSN journal
00225347
Volume
157
Issue
4
Year of publication
1997
Pages
1223 - 1225
Database
ISI
SICI code
0022-5347(1997)157:4<1223:TCLOIO>2.0.ZU;2-P
Abstract
Purpose: We attempted to quantitate the level of participation of urol ogy residents and faculty in clinical renal transplantation in the Uni ted States and Canada at the present time. Materials and Methods: All 123 urology residency program directors in the United States and all 1 3 in Canada were mailed a questionnaire requesting information about t he participation of their residents and faculty in clinical renal tran splantation at their institutions. All program directors (100%) return ed the surveys. Results: In the United States 94% of residencies are a ffiliated with renal transplant programs and 81% provide a transplant rotation. In Canada each program provides a transplant experience. In the United States 22% and in Canada 85% of academic renal transplant p rograms are directed or codirected by urology. In the United States ap proximately 80% and in Canada more than 90% of residents are exposed t o transplant surgery, although the majority have pre-urology or junior resident rotations. Approximately 50% of residents in each country re ceive training in immunosuppression. In the United States 25% of progr ams have urology faculty perform transplant surgery and administer imm unosuppression, compared to more than 90 and only 15%, respectively, i n Canada. Conclusions: Urological participation in clinical renal tran splantation at academic medical centers remains strong with approximat ely 25% of programs directed or codirected by urology departments in t he United States-a figure that has not changed appreciably during the last 10 years. In the future the continued presence of urology in tran splantation requires a commitment from urology program directors to su pport exposure for residents as well as promoting the training and dev elopment of young transplant surgeons within our own specialty.