Abstract
BACKGROUND
With the increase in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) fellowships, the concept of the ideal and standardized training curriculum is emerging in importance. The authors hypothesize that the procedure mix in current MIS training is different from what current MIS fellows would expect for their "ideal" fellowship.
METHODS
An anonymous survey of current MIS fellows examined their perceptions of the case diversity and volume they expect to perform in their fellowships as compared with an ideal fellowship. Differences between expected and ideal case volume were analyzed using Wilcoxon tests.
RESULTS
A total of 32 questionnaires were returned. Current MIS fellows believe their expected training will exceed the ideal volume of laparoscopic cholecystectomies (p = 0.002). They believe their expected training is equivalent to ideal training in laparoscopic gastric bypass, ventral herniorraphy, inguinal herniorraphy, antireflux procedures, appendectomy, and diagnostic endoscopy (nonsignificant difference). However, current expected training falls short of their "ideal" case volume in laparoscopic gastric banding, colectomy, common bile duct exploration, gastrectomy, esophagectomy, splenectomy, adrenalectomy, hepatectomy, nephrectomy, and pancreatectomy (p < 0.05). The current MIS fellows also expect that their thoracoscopic, therapeutic endoscopy, and robotic procedure volume will be less than "ideal" (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
In 13 of 20 procedure types, current MIS fellows expect to perform a smaller case volume than in an "ideal" fellowship. The ideal case volume in the MIS fellowship curriculum needs to be defined better.
Collapse