Program Directors' Perspectives on Residency Applications in the Post‒United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Era: A Case for Standardized Letters of Recommendation?

INTRODUCTION: The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 test evolved into a key metric utilized by program directors (PDs) in assessing candidates for residency. The transition to a USMLE Step 1 binary pass/fail scoring system has resulted in a loss of an important objective assessment. With national movements toward pass/fail systems for clerkship grading and trends toward abandonment of class ranking, assessing residency applications has become increasingly challenging. METHODS: The Society of Academic Urologists convened a task force to, in part, assess the perspectives of urology PDs regarding the importance of various aspects of a residency application for predicting clinical performance. An anonymous survey was disseminated to all urology PDs in the US. Perspectives on 11 potential application predictors of clinical performance and demographics were recorded. Descriptive statistics characterized PD responses. Friedman test and pairwise Wilcoxon tests were used to evaluate the relative ranks assigned to application elements by PDs. RESULTS: There was a 60.5% response rate (89/147). Letters of recommendation (LORs) were ranked as the most important predictor, with a mean rank of 2.39, median of 2 (IQR 1-3). Clerkship grades and USMLE Step 1 were comparable and ranked second. Medical school reputation ranked the lowest. There was significant subjective heterogeneity among categories; however, this was less so for LORs, which predominated as the most important factor among application elements (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the largest sample size assessing PD perspectives on application factors that predict clinical performance. The second (clerkship grades) and third (USLME Step 1) most important factors moving toward binary pass/fail systems create an opportunity for actionable change to improve assessment objectivity. Our data demonstrate LORs to be the most important factor of residency applications, making a compelling argument for moving toward a standardized LOR to maximize this tool, mitigate bias, and improve interreviewer reliability.

Gender-based Disparity Exists in the Surgical Experience of Female and Male Urology Residents.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a discrepancy exists in the number and type of cases logged between female and male urology residents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ACGME case log data from 13 urology residency programs was collected from 2007 to 2020. The number and type of cases for each resident were recorded and correlated with resident gender and year of graduation. The median, 25th and 75th percentiles number of cases were calculated by gender, and then compared between female and male residents using Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: A total of 473 residents were included in the study, 100 (21%) were female. Female residents completed significantly fewer cases, 2174, compared to male residents, 2273 (P = .038). Analysis by case type revealed male residents completed significantly more general urology (526 vs 571, P = .011) and oncology cases (261 vs 280, P = .026). Additionally, female residents had a 1.3-fold increased odds of logging a case in the assistant role than male residents (95% confidence interval: 1.27-1.34, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Gender-based disparity exists within the urology training of female and male residents. Male residents logged nearly 100 more cases than female residents over 4years, with significant differences in certain case subtypes and resident roles. The ACGME works to provide an equal training environment for all residents. Addressing this finding within individual training programs is critical.

Longitudinal Changes in the Operative Experience for Junior Urology Residents.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate longitudinal trends in surgical case volume among junior urology residents. There is growing perception that urology residents are not prepared for independent practice, which may be linked to decreased exposure to major cases early in residency. METHODS: Retrospective review of deidentified case logs from urology residency graduates from 12 academic medical centers in the United States from 2010 to 2017. The primary outcome was the change in major case volume for first-year urology (URO1) residents (after surgery internship), measured using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: A total of 391,399 total cases were logged by 244 residency graduates. Residents performed a median of 509 major cases, 487 minor cases, and 503 endoscopic cases. From 2010 to 2017, the median number of major cases performed by URO1 residents decreased from 64 to 49 (annual incidence rate ratio 0.90, P < .001). This trend was limited to oncology cases, with no change in reconstructive or pediatric cases. The number of major cases decreased more for URO1 residents than for residents at other levels (P-values for interaction <.05). The median number of endoscopic cases performed by URO1 residents increased from 85 to 194 (annual incidence rate ratio 1.09, P < .001), which was also disproportionate to other levels of residency (P-values for interaction <.05). CONCLUSION: There has been a shift in case distribution among URO1 residents, with progressively less exposure to major cases and an increased focus on endoscopic surgery. Further investigation is needed to determine if this trend has implications on the surgical proficiency of residency graduates.

Characterizing the biofilm of artificial urinary sphincters (AUS).

Background: There is a paucity of data regarding the bacterial colonization on artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) devices following revision surgery. We aim to evaluate the microbial compositions of explanted AUS devices identified on standard culture at our institution. Methods: Twenty-three AUS devices explanted were included in this study. During revision surgery, aerobic and anaerobic culture swabs are taken from the implant, capsule, fluid surrounding the device, and biofilm, if present. Culture specimens are sent to the hospital laboratory for routine culture evaluation immediately upon case completion. Differences in number of microorganism species detected across samples (richness) against demographic variables were determined through backwards selection of all variables using analysis of variance (ANOVA). We assessed the prevalence (how many times each species occurred) of microbial culture species. Statistical analyses were performed using the statistical package in R (version 4.2.1). Results: Cultures reported positive results in 20 (87%) cases. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most commonly identified bacteria among explanted AUS devices (n=16, 80%). Among two of the four infected/eroded implants, more virulent organisms such as Escherichia coli and fungal species such as Candida albicans were identified. The mean number of species identified amongst culture positive devices was 2.15±0.49. The number of unique bacteria identified per sample was not significantly associated with demographic variables including race, ethnicity, age at revision, smoking history, duration of implantation, etiology for explantation, and concomitant medical comorbidities. Conclusions: The majority of AUS devices removed for non-infectious reasons harbor organisms on traditional culture at the time of explantation. The most commonly identified bacteria in this setting is coagulase-negative staphylococci, which may be a result of bacterial colonization introduced at the time of implant. Conversely, infected implants may harbor microorganisms with higher virulence including fungal elements. Bacterial colonization or biofilm formation on implants may not necessarily equate to clinically infected devices. Future studies with more sophisticated technology, such as next-generation sequencing or extended cultures, may evaluate microbial compositions of biofilm at a more granular level to understand its role in device infections.

Gender Diversity in Urology Residency Program Leadership Is Associated With Gender Diversity in Residency Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of program director (PD) gender on the proportion of female residents in urology residency programs. METHODS: Demographics for program faculty and current residents matched in the 2017-2022 cycles at United States' accredited urology residency programs were collected from institutional websites. Data verification was completed using the American Urological Association's (AUA) list of accredited programs and the programs' official social media channels. Proportion of female residents across cohorts was compared using two-tailed Student's t-tests. RESULTS: One hundred forty-three accredited programs were studied, and 6 were excluded for lack of data. Thirty (22%) of the 137 programs studied have female PDs. Of 1799 residents, 571 (32%) are women. There has been an upward trend in the proportion of females matched from 26% in 2018 to 30% in 2019, 33% in 2020, 32% in 2021, to 38% in 2022. When compared to programs with male PDs, those with female PDs had a significantly higher proportion of female residents (36.2% vs 28.8%, p = .02). CONCLUSION: Nearly one-quarter of urology residency PDs are female, and approximately one-third of current urology residents are women, a proportion that has been increasing. Programs with female PDs are more likely to match female residents, whether those programs with female leadership rank female applicants more favorably or female applicants rank those programs higher. Given the ongoing gender disparities in urology, these findings indicate notable benefit in supporting female urologists in academic leadership positions.

Urinary undiversion by conversion of the incontinent ileovesicostomy to augmentation ileocystoplasty in spinal cord injured patients.

Context: Spinal cord injury (SCI) patients with neurogenic bladder and the inability to self-catheterize may require incontinent diversion to provide low-pressure drainage while avoiding the use of indwelling catheters. We demonstrate that in patients with significant functional improvement, the ileovesicostomy can be a reversible form of diversion, with simultaneous bladder augmentation using the same segment of ileum utilized for the ileovesicostomy. Multidisciplinary management should be utilized to assure mastery of intermittent catheterization before urinary undiversion. This technique allows for transition to a regimen of intermittent self-catheterization with excellent functional and urodynamic outcomes.Design: Case Series.Setting: Tertiary care hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Participants: Three individuals with an SCI.Interventions: Conversion of bladder management from an incontinent ileovesicostomy to an augmentation ileocystoplasty, with intermittent catheterization.Outcome Measures: Ability to regain urinary continence with preservation of renal function as determined by serum creatinine and renal ultrasound.Results: Three SCI patients who had an incontinent ileovesicostomy developed sufficient functional improvement to intermittently self-catheterize reliably and underwent conversion of ileovesicostomy to ileocystoplasty. For each, the ileovesicostomy channel was taken down and detubularized, then used to create an ileal patch for augmentation ileocystoplasty. Intermittent catheterization was then used for periodic bladder drainage. All achieved large capacity, low-pressure bladders with complete continence and stable creatinine.Conclusion: In motivated SCI patients, it is possible to regain continence by converting the ileovesicostomy into augmentation ileocystoplasty, avoiding the disadvantages of a urostomy. A multidisciplinary collaborative approach facilitates the optimal rehabilitation of SCI individuals.

Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate Following Previous Prostatic Urethral Lift.

Purpose: To determine the feasibility and operative challenges of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in patients with previous prostatic urethral lift (PUL) procedure. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was performed on files of all patients that underwent HoLEP at our institution between 2013 and 2021. Seven hundred ninety-three consecutive HoLEP cases were identified. Data collected included demographics, the time elapsed since previous PUL, number of PUL implants, preoperative prostate size, intraoperative complications/challenges, and postoperative follow-up. Results: Twenty-two men with a mean preoperative prostate size of 90 g (range 32-180 g) underwent HoLEP at a median of 14.4 months (range 2.8-48) after PUL. 63.6% (14/22) of cases involved prostates with preoperative sizes ≥80 g. Three cases involved PUL implant jamming of morcellator blades, which required replacing the blades. Fifteen cases (68.2%) required using a grasper or a basket device to remove free PUL implants or adenoma parts with PUL implants embedded in them. One patient needed a second procedure to remove a relatively large piece of calcified adenoma. Nonpost-PUL HoLEP was more time efficient than post-PUL HoLEP (0.77 vs 0.55 mL/minute respectively). There was no difference in functional outcome between post-PUL and nonpost-PUL HoLEP cases. Conclusions: While HoLEP can be performed safely and effectively in the PUL failure population, unique challenges arise. PUL implants may distort prostate anatomy, jam morcellator blades, and may be encountered in aberrant locations. Patients with borderline indications for PUL should be aware of the possibility of performing HoLEP in case of PUL failure.

Conversion of Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate to Open Prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence and predictive factors for conversion to an open procedure during Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate (HoLEP). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on files of all patients that underwent HoLEP at our institution between 2013 and 2020. Data collected included demographics, pre-operative estimated prostate size, intraoperative data, pathologic data, and functional baseline. A univariate and multivariate comparison between the pre-operative data of converted and un-converted cases was conducted. RESULTS: Among a total of 807 HoLEP procedure performed during the above period, 20 cases were converted to open procedures (2.4%). Median pre-operative estimated prostate size in cases of conversion was 228ml compared to 95ml for unconverted cases (P <.001). The reasons for conversion were anatomical in 8 cases (40%), bleeding that was difficult to control endoscopically in 4 cases (20%), expected procedure to be too long due to large prostate size in 6 cases (30%), one case of morcellation technical malfunction, and one case with very large bladder stones not suitable for endoscopic treatment. Prostate size was the only factor that was found to be associated with conversion in univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: The risk of conversion of HoLEP to open procedures is size-dependent. The risk for conversion to open prostatectomy/cystotomy must be communicated to patients who choose HoLEP to improve the informed consent process and provide the highest quality of patient care and transparency. Open prostatectomy/cystotomy should be a part of the armamentarium of every HoLEP surgeon operating on large prostates.