Cirugia espanola · 2026
Coloproctology practice during General and Digestive Surgery training. Survey of the Galician Coloproctology Group.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fernández-Veiga Pilar, Martínez Míguez Marta, Paniagua García-Señorans Marta, Romero González José Antonio, Fernández López Fernando, Vázquez Bouzán Raquel, López De Los Reyes Ramón, Aldrey Cao Inés, Casal Núñez José Enrique
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: In general surgery (GS), coloproctology (CP) constitutes one of the cornerstones in specialist training; however, it is unclear whether this training is sufficiently comprehensive and how trainees perceive it. In the same way, it's interesting to assess whether advanced accreditation of units may have an influence on this. Our objective was to determine the quality of this training in our community and to compare the results between hospitals with advanced colorectal unit and those without accreditation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using the results of anonymous surveys completed by GS trainees in Galicia regarding their training in CP.
RESULTS: A total of 57 residents participated (93.4%). Of them, 82.5% had never been evaluated during their residency. More than half stated that they had not received sufficient scientific training. They operated as first surgeon in proctological and colorectal procedures in 42.2% and 17.2% of cases, respectively. Only 3.7% did so in pelvic floor disorders. In accredited Units, the evaluation was significantly higher in the scientific domain (p = 0.003), in the clinical-care domain (p = 0.002), and in the overall achievement of objectives (p = 0.034). Additionally, there were statistically significant differences in the number of surgeries performed as first surgeon (p = 0.017) in favour of these Units.
CONCLUSION: There is wide room for improvement in CP training among our trainees, with special emphasis on the scientific domain. We observed that participation as first surgeon decreases in complex surgeries, which makes additional training essential to practice CP independently.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using the results of anonymous surveys completed by GS trainees in Galicia regarding their training in CP.
RESULTS: A total of 57 residents participated (93.4%). Of them, 82.5% had never been evaluated during their residency. More than half stated that they had not received sufficient scientific training. They operated as first surgeon in proctological and colorectal procedures in 42.2% and 17.2% of cases, respectively. Only 3.7% did so in pelvic floor disorders. In accredited Units, the evaluation was significantly higher in the scientific domain (p = 0.003), in the clinical-care domain (p = 0.002), and in the overall achievement of objectives (p = 0.034). Additionally, there were statistically significant differences in the number of surgeries performed as first surgeon (p = 0.017) in favour of these Units.
CONCLUSION: There is wide room for improvement in CP training among our trainees, with special emphasis on the scientific domain. We observed that participation as first surgeon decreases in complex surgeries, which makes additional training essential to practice CP independently.