Rodríguez-Covarrubias F, Negrete-Pulido O, Stina Erikson, Andreas Petrolekas, Selçuk Keskin, Morgan Rouprêt, Martínez-Piñeiro L, Claude-Clement Abbou, Stéphane Larré, Feria-Bernal G

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 324-328
PDF size: 133.45 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To know how Mexican and European medical residents in urology rotations perceive their level of training.
Materials and methods: An auto-evaluation questionnaire was applied to 105 European residentsand 24 Mexican residents. The theoretical and surgical training level was analyzed and factors associated with a successful residency were studied.
Results: Mean age of the 129 residents was 32.8±3.5 years. The Mexican residents had been in urology services for the longest period of time (P=0.01). The work week in hours was higher in Europe (P=0.002), but the number of residents per hospital was higher in Mexico (P‹0.001), along with greater supervision on the part of a clinical supervisor (P=0.002) and better knowledge of English (P=0.006). European residents reported a better level of knowledge in transplants (P=0.03) and urinary lithiasis (P‹0.001). Mexican residents reported a better level of knowledge in urinary infections (P=0.03) and pediatric urology (P=0.01). Mexican residents considered themselves to be more suited for carrying out minor surgical procedures (P=0.02).
Conclusions: The level of training expressed by urology residents in Mexico was similar to that of their European colleagues. The number of months in the urology service, non-urological rotations and clinical supervision were factors associated with better performance.

REFERENCES

1. Quijano-Pitman F. El origen y desarrollo de las residencias médicas. Gac Med Mex 1999:135:73-6.

2. La Facultad de Medicina en Cifras, 2005-2006. Secretaría de Servicios Escolares, Facultad de Medicina. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: pp. 19.

3. Kerfoot BP, Nabha KS, Masser BA, McCullough DL. What makes a medical student avoid or enter a career in urology? Results of an International Survey. J Urol 2005:174: 1953-7.

4. Larre S, Dubosq F, Keskin S, et al. Is the surgical training of French urologists more effective than that of urologists in other European countries? Prog Urol 2007:17:92-7.

5. Parkar SP, Fuglsig S, Nunes P, Keskin S, Kniestedt WJ, Sedelaar JP. Urological training in Europe: similarities and differences. BJU Int 2005:96:207-11.

6. Guillonneau B, Ballanger P, Lugagne PM, Valla JS, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic versus lumboscopic nephrectomy. Eur Urol 1996: 29:288-91.

7. Abbou CC, Cicco A, Gasman D, et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy. J Urol 1999:161:1776-80.

8. Rassweiler JJ, Seemann O, Frede T, Henkel TO, Alken P. Retroperitoneoscopy: experience with 200 cases. J Urol 1998:160:1265-9.

9. Katz R, Nadu A, Olsson LE, et al. A simplified 5-step model for training laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis. J Urol 2003: 169:2041-4.

10. Marquina Sánchez M, Esquivel PP. Año y medio de nefrectomía laparoscópica. (52 casos). Rev Mex Cir Endoscop 2004:5:38-43.

11. Marquina Sánchez M, García SF, Esquivel PP, Araiza LlA, López Velarde VG. Nefrectomía donante laparoscópica asistida con la mano vs. cirugía abierta (lumbotomía). Rev Mex Urol 2003:63:91-4.

12. Rodríguez-Covarrubias F, Martínez Liévano L, Gabilondo Pliego B, Gabilondo Navarro F, Atisha-Fregoso Y, Arroyo C. Simulador computarizado de inmersión virtual como modelo de inicio de entrenamiento de laparoscopia urológica. Actas Urol Esp 2006:30:819-23.

13. Mercado Barajas JL, Viniegra Velazquez L, Leyva Gonzalez FA. Aptitud para la lectura crítica de informes de investigaciones clínicas en médicos residentes del IMSS en Jalisco. Rev Invest Clin 2001:53:413-21.