Search

Abstract Background A significant proportion of boys present to surgical specialists later in infancy/early childhood for elective operative circumcision despite the higher procedural risks. This study aims to assess physician perspectives on access to neonatal circumcision across the United States and identify potential reasons contributing to disparities in access. Methods A cross-sectional survey was electronically distributed to physician members of the Societies for Pediatric Urology and the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine. Hospital characteristics and circumcision practices were assessed. Associations between NC availability and institutional characteristics were evaluated using chi-squared testing and multivariable logistic regression. Qualitative analyses of free-text comments were performed. Results A total of 367 physicians responded (129 urologists [41%], 188 pediatric hospitalists [59%]). Neonatal circumcision was available at 86% of hospitals represented. On univariate and multivariate analysis, the 50 hospitals that did not offer neonatal circumcision were more likely to be located in the Western region (odds ratio [OR] = 8.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.1–25 vs. Midwest) and in an urban area (OR = 4.2; 95% CI 1.6–10 vs. suburban/rural) compared with hospitals that offered neonatal circumcision. Most common reasons for lack of availability included not a birth hospital (N = 22, 47%), lack of insurance coverage (N = 8, 17%), and low insurance reimbursement (N = 7, 15%). Institutional, regional, or provider availability (68%), insurance/payment (12.4%), and ethics (12.4%) were common themes in the qualitative comments. Conclusions Overall availability of neonatal circumcision varied based on hospital characteristics, including geography. Information from this survey will inform development of interventions designed to offer neonatal circumcision equitably and comprehensively.

Abstract Background Current organizational guidelines regarding use of antibiotics during urinary tract catheterization are based on limited evidence and are not directly applicable to the pediatric urology population. We seek to improve understanding of this population by first evaluating current practices. This study aims to investigate practice patterns and attitudes of pediatric urologists regarding the use of antibiotics in the setting of urinary tract catheterization. Methods An online survey was sent to members of the Society for Pediatric Urology. Questionnaire sections included demographics, general questions about antibiotic use with catheterization, and specific clinical scenarios. Descriptive statistics were used, and chi-square analysis was performed to examine associations between demographics and specific responses. Results Of 448 pediatric urologists surveyed, 154 (34%) responded to the survey. A majority of surveyed urologists (78%) prescribe daily prophylactic antibiotics with a hypospadias stent in place, but extensive variation in use of antibiotics was reported with other catheters and tubes. Extensive variation in practice patterns was also reported for three case scenarios regarding antibiotic prophylaxis with catheterization. Urologists > 50 years of age and fellowship-trained urologists were more likely to prescribe antibiotics for hypospadias stents (p = 0.02, p = 0.03), but no other significant associations between demographic characteristics and antibiotic use were found. Conclusions There is substantial variation in practice patterns among surveyed pediatric urologists regarding prophylactic antibiotic use with urinary catheterization. This variation, combined with a lack of objective data and increasing pressure to decrease infectious complications and combat antibiotic resistance, highlights the need for development of management guidelines for this unique population.