RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to capture an overview of anticipated staffing needs at Canadian urology academic centres over the next 5 years to help guide and counsel urology residents in their respective programs. METHODS: A 30-question survey was sent by email to all chairmen of academic urology divisions/departments during fall 2012. The first part of the survey solicited basic demographic information regarding number of residents, number of fellows and fellowships, and number of attending staff and affiliated hospitals. The second part of the survey included detailed questions on the number and sub-specialty of urologists needed at each respective institution, as well as the appropriate year of recruitment. RESULTS: The response rate was 100%. There are 13 urology training programs across Canada located in 6 out of the 10 provinces. Robotic surgery is available at 9 out of the 13 centres. A total of 68 urologists need to be recruited by academic institutions throughout Canada within the next 5 years. The greatest need is for general urologists, with a total of 13 required. This is followed by 12 urologic oncologists needed, 11 female urology, 7 reconstructive urologists, 6 pediatric urologists, 6 endourologists, 5 transplant surgeons, 4 infertility/andrology, and 4 experts in advanced laparoscopy/robotics. There was no need for any urologic trauma surgeons in any academic institution surveyed. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 68 urologists need to be recruited into academic urology across Canada within the next 5 years. This crucial information can be used to help guide urology residents in choosing the most appropriate fellowship, in addition to providing them with an overview of future job prospects at academic institutions throughout the country.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare the detection rate, conspicuity, and size measurements of urinary tract calculi on coronal reformations versus the axial plane using 64-MDCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective study, 80 consecutive CT examinations performed for clinical diagnosis of renal colic or for the assessment of known nephrolithiasis were evaluated. All studies were stripped of patient identifiers, and the axial and coronal plane images of each study were randomized and presented to two abdominal radiologists. For each study, the radiologists recorded the number and location of stones, diagnostic confidence and stone conspicuity (subjectively on a 2-point scale), and stone size. The standard of reference was data from a consensus reading with the study coordinator examining the same parameters on images in both planes of each patient. Detection rates were compared between planes using logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to account for multiple stones per patient. RESULTS: On consensus reading, 272 stones were identified. For all renal stones, the coronal plane detected more stones as compared with the axial plane (p < 0.001). For stones smaller than 5 mm, a higher proportion received the maximal conspicuity score on the coronal plane than on the axial plane (p < 0.001). Both reviewers better estimated stone size on the coronal plane than the axial plane (p = 0.02); their axial plane measurements underestimated stone size by 13.4% (mean). CONCLUSION: The detection of stones and estimation of maximal stone diameter were improved using coronal reformations. The conspicuity of stones and diagnostic confidence in identifying stones smaller than 5 mm in diameter were also improved on the coronal plane.