美国妇科腹腔镜医师协会会员的研究员培训、手术量和腹腔镜缝合技术之间的关系。

IF 1.3 Q3 SURGERY
Minimally Invasive Surgery Pub Date : 2016-01-01 Epub Date: 2016-01-18 DOI:10.1155/2016/5459147
Emad Mikhail, Lauren Scott, Branko Miladinovic, Anthony N Imudia, Stuart Hart
{"title":"美国妇科腹腔镜医师协会会员的研究员培训、手术量和腹腔镜缝合技术之间的关系。","authors":"Emad Mikhail, Lauren Scott, Branko Miladinovic, Anthony N Imudia, Stuart Hart","doi":"10.1155/2016/5459147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study Objective. To compare surgical volume and techniques including laparoscopic suturing among members of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) according to fellowship training status. Design. A web-based survey was designed using Qualtrics and sent to AAGL members. Results. Minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (FMIGS) trained surgeons were more likely to perform more than 8 major conventional laparoscopic cases per month (63% versus 38%, P < 0.001, OR [95% CI] = 2.78 [1.54-5.06]) and were more likely to perform laparoscopic suturing during these cases (32% versus 16%, P < 0.004, OR [95% CI] = 2.44 [1.25-4.71]). The non-fellowship trained (NFT) surgeons in private practice were less likely to perform over 8 conventional laparoscopic cases (34% versus 51%, P = 0.03, OR [95% CI] = 0.50 [0.25-0.99]) and laparoscopic suturing during these cases (13% versus 27%, P = 0.01, OR [95% CI] = 0.39 [0.17-0.92]) compared to NFT surgeons in academic practice. Conclusion. The surgical volume and utilization of laparoscopic suturing of FMIGS trained surgeons are significantly increased compared to NFT surgeons. Academic practice setting had a positive impact on surgical volume of NFT surgeons but not on FMIGS trained surgeons. </p>","PeriodicalId":45110,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739463/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association between Fellowship Training, Surgical Volume, and Laparoscopic Suturing Techniques among Members of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.\",\"authors\":\"Emad Mikhail, Lauren Scott, Branko Miladinovic, Anthony N Imudia, Stuart Hart\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2016/5459147\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Study Objective. To compare surgical volume and techniques including laparoscopic suturing among members of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) according to fellowship training status. Design. A web-based survey was designed using Qualtrics and sent to AAGL members. Results. Minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (FMIGS) trained surgeons were more likely to perform more than 8 major conventional laparoscopic cases per month (63% versus 38%, P < 0.001, OR [95% CI] = 2.78 [1.54-5.06]) and were more likely to perform laparoscopic suturing during these cases (32% versus 16%, P < 0.004, OR [95% CI] = 2.44 [1.25-4.71]). The non-fellowship trained (NFT) surgeons in private practice were less likely to perform over 8 conventional laparoscopic cases (34% versus 51%, P = 0.03, OR [95% CI] = 0.50 [0.25-0.99]) and laparoscopic suturing during these cases (13% versus 27%, P = 0.01, OR [95% CI] = 0.39 [0.17-0.92]) compared to NFT surgeons in academic practice. Conclusion. The surgical volume and utilization of laparoscopic suturing of FMIGS trained surgeons are significantly increased compared to NFT surgeons. Academic practice setting had a positive impact on surgical volume of NFT surgeons but not on FMIGS trained surgeons. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45110,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minimally Invasive Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739463/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minimally Invasive Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5459147\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2016/1/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5459147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的。比较美国妇科腹腔镜医师协会(AAGL)成员根据研究员培训情况进行的手术量和技术(包括腹腔镜缝合)。设计。使用 Qualtrics 设计了一项网络调查,并发送给 AAGL 会员。结果。接受过微创妇科手术(FMIGS)培训的外科医生更有可能每月进行8例以上大型常规腹腔镜手术(63%对38%,P < 0.001,OR [95% CI] = 2.78 [1.54-5.06]),并且更有可能在这些手术中进行腹腔镜缝合(32%对16%,P < 0.004,OR [95% CI] = 2.44 [1.25-4.71])。与从事学术实践的非研究培训(NFT)外科医生相比,私人诊所的非研究培训(NFT)外科医生不太可能进行超过8例的常规腹腔镜手术(34%对51%,P = 0.03,OR [95% CI] = 0.50 [0.25-0.99]),也不太可能在这些手术中进行腹腔镜缝合(13%对27%,P = 0.01,OR [95% CI] = 0.39 [0.17-0.92])。结论与 NFT 外科医生相比,接受过 FMIGS 培训的外科医生的手术量和腹腔镜缝合术利用率都有显著提高。学术实践环境对 NFT 外科医生的手术量有积极影响,但对接受过 FMIGS 培训的外科医生没有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Association between Fellowship Training, Surgical Volume, and Laparoscopic Suturing Techniques among Members of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.

Study Objective. To compare surgical volume and techniques including laparoscopic suturing among members of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) according to fellowship training status. Design. A web-based survey was designed using Qualtrics and sent to AAGL members. Results. Minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (FMIGS) trained surgeons were more likely to perform more than 8 major conventional laparoscopic cases per month (63% versus 38%, P < 0.001, OR [95% CI] = 2.78 [1.54-5.06]) and were more likely to perform laparoscopic suturing during these cases (32% versus 16%, P < 0.004, OR [95% CI] = 2.44 [1.25-4.71]). The non-fellowship trained (NFT) surgeons in private practice were less likely to perform over 8 conventional laparoscopic cases (34% versus 51%, P = 0.03, OR [95% CI] = 0.50 [0.25-0.99]) and laparoscopic suturing during these cases (13% versus 27%, P = 0.01, OR [95% CI] = 0.39 [0.17-0.92]) compared to NFT surgeons in academic practice. Conclusion. The surgical volume and utilization of laparoscopic suturing of FMIGS trained surgeons are significantly increased compared to NFT surgeons. Academic practice setting had a positive impact on surgical volume of NFT surgeons but not on FMIGS trained surgeons.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信