The State of Urotrauma Education Among Residency Programs in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose of Review: Management of urotrauma is a crucial part of a urologist’s knowledge and training. We therefore sought to understand the state of urotrauma education in the United States. Recent Findings: Using themes of “Urotrauma” and “Education,” we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching for studies in MEDLINE, all Cochrane libraries, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Scopus, and Web of Science through May 2023. The primary outcome was the pooled rate of urology trainee and program director attitudes toward urotrauma education. Secondary outcomes involved a descriptive summary of existing urotrauma curricula and an assessment of factors affecting urotrauma exposure. Of 12,230 unique records, 11 studies met the final eligibility criteria, and we included 2 in the meta-analysis. The majority of trainees and program directors reported having level 1 trauma center rotations (range 88–89%) and considered urotrauma exposure as an important aspect of residency education (83%, 95% CI 76–88%). Despite possible increases in trainee exposure to Society of Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgeons (GURS) faculty over the preceding decade, nearly a third of trainees and program directors currently felt there remained inadequate exposure to urotrauma during training (32%, 95% CI 19–46%). Factors affecting urotrauma education include the limited exposure to GURS-trained faculty and clinical factors such as case infrequency and non-operative trauma management. Summary: Urology resident exposure to urotrauma is inadequate in many training programs, underscoring the potential value of developing a standardized curriculum to improve urotrauma education for trainees. Further investigation is needed to characterize this issue and to understand how it impacts trainee practice readiness.