Defining cage subsidence in anterior, oblique, and lateral lumbar spine fusion approaches: a systematic review of the literature.

One of the most common complications of lumbar fusions is cage subsidence, which leads to collapse of disc height and reappearance of the presenting symptomology. However, definitions of cage subsidence are inconsistent, leading to a variety of subsidence calculation methodologies and thresholds. To review previously published literature on cage subsidence in order to present the most common methods for calculating and defining subsidence in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) approaches. A search was completed in PubMed and Embase with inclusion criteria focused on identifying any study that provided descriptions of the method, imaging modality, or subsidence threshold used to calculate the presence of cage subsidence. A total of 69 articles were included in the final analysis, of which 18 (26.1%) reported on the ALIF approach, 22 (31.9%) on the OLIF approach, and 31 (44.9%) on the LLIF approach, 2 of which reported on more than one approach. ALIF articles most commonly calculated the loss of disc height over time with a subsidence threshold of > 2 mm. Most OLIF articles calculated the total amount of cage migration into the vertebral bodies, with a threshold of > 2 mm. LLIF was the only approach in which most articles applied the same method for calculation, namely, a grading scale for classifying the loss of disc height over time. We recommend future articles adhere to the most common methodologies presented here to ensure accuracy and generalizability in reporting cage subsidence.

Graduating resident and fellow readiness for general urologic practice during the COVID-19 pandemic A survey-based assessment of trainees and program directors.

INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to compare the perceived readiness of graduating urologic residents and fellows to program directors (PDs) in U.S.-based postgraduate training programs. Additionally, we set out to assess the impact of COVID-19 on postgraduation plans to pursue fellowship training. METHODS: Graduating residents, fellows, and PDs of accredited residency/fellowship programs in the U.S. were surveyed. The ranked preparedness of trainees to perform common urologic procedures was measured using a Likert scale from 1 (not comfortable) to 5 (fully proficient). The impact of COVID-19 was measured using a three-point Likert scale. Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis analyses were used to compare the groups. RESULTS: From 93 responders, 21 were residents, 19 were fellows, 24 were residency PDs, and 29 were fellowship PDs. The median levels of comfort for trans-urethral resection of the prostate, hydrocelectomy, vasectomy, and urethral sling were at or above (≥3) moderate for both PDs and trainees. PDs were more likely to report underperformance for hypospadias repair (60% vs. 39%), penile prosthesis implantation (39% vs. 26%), and orthotopic neobladder formation (57% vs. 18%) than the trainees. Fifty-three (57.0%) of the surveyors felt that COVID-19 did not impact the trainees' comfort in performing general urologic procedures. COVID-19 influenced trainees' decision to pursue a fellowship or opt to practice as general urologists (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests there may be a self-reported discrepancy between graduating trainees and their PDs regarding trainees' comfort levels performing general urologic procedures.

Evaluation of Educational Feedback in Urology Training: A Survey-Based Assessment of Trainees and Program Directors.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate current satisfaction with the feedback provided during post-graduate urological training, including the quality and frequency of feedback, with participants consisting of both trainees and program directors. Additionally, we aimed to identify areas for future improvement in resident and fellow-level urological training. METHODS: Graduating residents, fellows, and program directors from accredited residency/fellowship programs in the United States were surveyed. A total of 575 surveys were sent out. Information on feedback frequency, quality, form, and satisfaction was collected using applicable multiple-choice responses and a five-point Likert scale. An open-ended question gathered suggestions for improving current feedback processes. A chi-square test of independence was used to compare the responses to individual questions. RESULTS: Ninety-two respondents answered our survey: 22 residents, 18 fellows, 25 residency program directors (PDs), and 27 fellowship PDs. The distribution of age, race, and gender categories was not significantly different between PDs and trainees. However, there was a significant difference in their subspecialties and American Urological Association (AUA) sections. The majority of fellowship PDs, residency PDs, fellows, and residents (88 total) reported verbal feedback as the predominant method within their practice. This was followed by written (68 total), electronic (54 total), and app-based feedback (19 total). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that there may be a need for ongoing improvement or standardization of feedback mechanisms in the field of urological training and highlights the perceived discrepancies between learners and educators.

Graduating resident and fellow readiness for general urologic practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey-based assessment of trainees and program directors.

INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to compare the perceived readiness of graduating urologic residents and fellows to program directors (PDs) in U.S.-based postgraduate training programs. Additionally, we set out to assess the impact of COVID-19 on postgraduation plans to pursue fellowship training. METHODS: Graduating residents, fellows, and PDs of accredited residency/fellowship programs in the U.S. were surveyed. The ranked preparedness of trainees to perform common urologic procedures was measured using a Likert scale from 1 (not comfortable) to 5 (fully proficient). The impact of COVID-19 was measured using a three-point Likert scale. Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis analyses were used to compare the groups. RESULTS: From 93 responders, 21 were residents, 19 were fellows, 24 were residency PDs, and 29 were fellowship PDs. The median levels of comfort for transurethral resection of the prostate, hydrocelectomy, vasectomy, and urethral sling were at or above (≥3) moderate for both PDs and trainees. PDs were more likely to report underperformance for hypospadias repair (60% vs. 39%), penile prosthesis implantation (39% vs. 26%), and orthotopic neobladder formation (57% vs. 18%) than the trainees. Fifty-three (57.0%) of the surveyors felt that COVID-19 did not impact the trainees' comfort in performing general urologic procedures. COVID-19 influenced trainees' decision to pursue a fellowship or opt to practice as general urologists (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests there may be a self-reported discrepancy between graduating trainees and their PDs regarding trainees' comfort levels performing general urologic procedures.