The impact of male infertility faculty on urology residency training

Microsurgical Education in Reproductive Urology: A Review of Current Techniques and Opportunities for Improved Access to Learning Experiences

Infertility is a common problem. Despite this, a dearth of urologists are trained in infertility care. Improved training opportunities may improve proficiency and interest in subspecialized training. We present a narrative review of current and proposed techniques in microsurgical education, with noted methods from other specialties. Opportunities for quality improvement include technological advancements, dedicated training laboratories, and artificial and animal models. Ample opportunity exists for improvement and standardization of microsurgical skills training, institutionally and nationally. Adoption of training methods may bolster resident interest in andrology and male infertility as a career and improve outcomes for those who complete fellowship training.

Physician infertility: a structured literature review

Physician infertility has become a growing concern because of the increasingly high rates of infertility physicians experience associated with their strenuous work schedules, environmental exposures, and delayed family planning due to their necessitated years of training. Fortunately, there has been an increase in awareness, advocacy, and urgency for institutional support alongside this suboptimal association. This awareness is reflected in the vast existing literature regarding physician infertility; in this scoping review, we aggregated and assessed the current data as well as identified gaps in the available research. Including 56 articles regarding various aspects of the current state of physician infertility, we compiled and synthesized the available data to understand the role of infertility in physician family planning, including specific analyses for surgeons and comparisons of male and female physicians. We discussed the utilization and downsides of artificial reproductive technologies for this population in terms of finances and logistics, contributing to this complex and, until recently, neglected issue. Lastly, we reported on a multitude of suggestions aimed at medical training programs to help combat the complex issue of physician infertility.

Effectiveness of, and Satisfaction with, a Microsurgical Testicular Sperm Extraction Knowledge and Skills Masterclass for a World-Wide Audience

PURPOSE

This is the first study to assess the impact of an online microsurgical testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) masterclass. We: 1) describe the masterclass's scientific content; 2) appraise the participants' acquisition of knowledge; 3) gauge whether the extent of improvement of the participants' knowledge/skills was influenced by demographic/professional attributes; and 4) evaluate the participants' satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This masterclass comprised five didactic lectures followed by 4 case discussions. Online surveys assessed the above objectives using a baseline questionnaire including demographics and past mTESE experience/training, a 24-question pre- and post-quiz, and a satisfaction questionnaire.

RESULTS

Participants were between 20-70 years old, with 80.37% males, mainly from Asia, Africa, and Europe, from clinical backgrounds (69.3%), and in public practice (64.4%). Half the sample reported no past mTESE training and very low skills, ≈60% wanted considerably more training, and 50% felt that good training was not readily available. Satisfaction was 98% to >99%. Pre- and post-quiz comparisons confirmed remarkable improvements in knowledge/skills, exhibiting five striking characteristics. Improvements were a) Broad i.e., across 19 of the 24 mTESE questions; b) Deep, of magnitude, as pre-/post-quiz scores improved from mean 13.71±4.13 to 17.06±4.73; c) Highly significant, consistently with p-values <0.001; d) Inclusive i.e., all participants enhanced their mTESE knowledge/skills regardless of demographic/professional attributes; and, e) Differential, e.g., non-clinical/clinical participants improved, but the former improved relatively significantly more, those with ≤5-year experience improved significantly more than those with >5-year, those in public practice significantly more than private practice participants, and those with lower self-rating in performing mTESE significantly more than those with higher self-rating.

CONCLUSIONS

The masterclass was successful with very high satisfaction levels, and markedly improved mTESE knowledge/skills among the participants. Global Andrology Forum's model can be adopted by organizations with similar goals. Future research needs to evaluate such training to develop a practically non-existent evidence base.

Understanding the prevalence and distribution of fellowship trained female and male genitourinary reconstruction and men's health/andrology academic faculty in the United States

Background

We evaluated the prevalence, distribution, and specialist to population ratio of male and female reconstruction and andrology/prosthetics faculty within United States urologic training programs. Our objective was to help determine the current need/demand for reconstructive fellowship trained faculty for necessary clinical exposure during residency in the midst of a nationwide residency expansion.

Methods

All non-military urology residency programs were evaluated. Programs were sorted into their American Urologic Association Sections and websites were analyzed for evidence of fellowship training and/or clinical expertise/interest: (I) male genitourinary reconstruction (MGR); (II) female genitourinary reconstruction (FGR) and (III) infertility/andrology/men's health (AMH). The 2020 US Census data was used to determine specialist to population ratios by sections.

Results

Of 137 evaluated programs, FGR had the highest percentage of fellowship-trained faculty (76%) followed by AMH (66%) and MGR (61%). Clinical/surgical interest was noted in pelvic organ prolapse (88%), inflatable penile prosthesis (79%) and urethral stricture disease (75%). Over 10% of training programs had two or more faculty with MGR, FGR and AMH fellowship training. Significant geographic variation amongst academic programs exists with the South and Southeastern parts of the US being relatively underserved, both in percentage of programs with fellowship-trained faculty, and by faculty per 1,000,000 inhabitants.

Conclusions

The majority of US urology residencies have faculty with fellowship training and/or stated clinical interest in MGR, FGR and AMH. Still, many programs remain without these faculty while others have two or more in their respective fields. The geographic trends noted here have both educational and recruitment significance.

Current exposure to Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery faculty during urology residency

INTRODUCTION

Contemporary US resident exposure to Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) faculty during urology residency is unknown.

METHODS

Accredited US urology residencies were identified through the American Urological Association (AUA). Accredited, urology-based FPMRS fellowships were identified through the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction. The number of faculty and residency positions were obtained from program AUA profiles if they were last modified within the current application cycle; this information was obtained from program websites if AUA profiles were outdated. Data on faculty fellowship training was manually extracted from program websites. A quality control cross-check of program and faculty training characteristics was performed through direct communication with 5% of programs.

RESULTS

Of 139 accredited residency programs assessed, 10.8% were affiliated with an accredited, urology-based FPMRS fellowship. In total, 29.5% of residency programs, representing 25% of US urology residents, had neither a FPMRS fellowship nor any FPMRS certified faculty. The national FPMRS faculty-to-resident ratio was 1:10.8, and 7.4% of faculty at all residency programs were FPMRS certified. In comparison, faculty-to-resident ratios for other subspecialties were: 1:4.7 for pediatrics, 1:3.6 for oncology, 1:5.9 for minimally invasive surgery/endourology, 1:14.2 for trauma/reconstruction, and 1:11.8 for andrology or male sexual/reproductive health. The FPMRS faculty-to-resident ratio was 1:5.1 in programs with a urology-based FPMRS fellowship compared with 1:13.4 in programs without a FPMRS fellowship.

CONCLUSIONS

30% of US urology residency programs lack FPMRS trained faculty. Even when FPMRS faculty are on staff, the field is often underrepresented relative to other urologic subspecialties. Further studies are required to ascertain if inadequate exposure to FPMRS cases and mentors during training contribute to the shortage of urology residents who choose to specialize in FPMRS. This link has important implications for the current shortage of FPMRS providers.