Editorial comment for George et al.

T he authors are to be congratulated on reporting an important pilot rotation experience for urology residents in interventional radiology. No doubt, few urologists would argue that branching into fields such as interventional radiology offers clear benefits to the clinical spectrum of urologic diseases that are manageable by urologists. As such, the majority of the cases in which residents were trained involved vascular interventions, most of which have some relevance to potential urologic interventions. I am in full agreement that this elective may serve a greater good for both urology and radiology, and further enhances the crossover and clinical efficiency between the two services.

While the authors have demonstrated the feasibility of this sort of collaboration, going forward, it will be important to develop benchmarks to assess performance. Given the existing certification process required for radiologists, a more rigorous documentation than the self-reported performance assessment used by the authors in this study will likely be necessary for urologists and trainees. Regardless, in time we will see where this type of collaboration will lead us. As urologists begin to perform more renal ultrasonography and other hands-on imaging techniques, it would be no surprise if urologists became more involved with radiologic and interventional procedures.