The need for specialized training for adults with congenital urologic conditions: Differences in opinion among specialties

Introduction The aim of this study was to survey pediatric urology fellowship directors (PFD) and adult reconstruction fellowship directors (AFD) to assess who they believe has sufficient training to care for adults with congenital urologic conditions (ACUC). Material and methods An online survey was created to assess attitudes towards specific training to care for ACUC. The survey was administered to 27 PFD and 26 AFD [16 from genitourinary reconstructive surgery (GURS) and 10 from female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS)]. Both groups were asked if specific training is warranted, and if general urologists, pediatric urologists or adult reconstructive urologists were sufficiently trained to care for ACUC. Results A total of 26 (96%) PFD and 10 (39%) AFD completed the survey. All PFD were fellowship trained in pediatrics. Of the AFD, 5 were GURS trained, 4 were FPMRS trained and 1 was not fellowship trained. The majority (65% PFD, 90% AFD) believed specific training is warranted. Few believed general urologists have sufficient training (8% PFD, 20% AFD). Most PFD believed pediatric urologists have sufficient training (85%), but a minority believed those with adult reconstructive training do (40%). Conversely, a minority of AFD believed that pediatric urologists have sufficient training (40%), while those with adult reconstructive training do (FPMRS: 67%, GURS: 60%). Conclusions Both pediatric and adult reconstructive urologists believe specific training to care for adults with congenital urologic conditions is warranted. Neither group considers the other to be ideally suited to care for this complex patient group. This suggests both groups may have something to learn from each other.