Search

Introduction With the introduction of novel treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), decision making regarding surgical management has become ever more complex. Factors such as clinical exposure, equipment availability, patient characteristics and hospital setting may affect what treatment is offered and an informed patient choice. The aim of this study was to investigate how urologists help patients make decisions regarding BPH management and whether their practice would differ if they were the patient themselves. Material and methods A 52-question survey presenting hypothetical clinical scenarios was distributed to European urologists and trainees/residents online and in person. In each scenario, regarding treatment options for BPH, the participant considered themselves firstly as the treating clinician and secondly as the patient themselves. Details regarding the participants’ clinical experience, awareness of treatment options and exposure to these options were obtained. Results There were 139 participants; 69.8% of whom were consultants, with 82.1% of participants having practiced urology for more than 5 years. A total of 59.7% of urologists consider themselves BPH specialists. Furthermore, 93.5% of those surveyed had performed transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), whilst procedures performed the least by participants were minimally invasive surgical therapy (MIST) options. Only 17.3% had seen and 1.4% had performed all of the treatment options. When considering themselves as a patient within standard practice, there was a preference for HoLEP amongst participants. Conclusions The majority of urologists surveyed had minimal experience to newer BPH techniques and MIST, suggesting that more exposure is required. A higher rate of HoLEP was chosen as a treatment option for urologists themselves as a patient than what they would choose as an option for their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze the pattern of speaker activity related to both flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) during plenary sessions at the main (endo)urological international meetings over the last 10 years. Methods: We reviewed the meeting programs of the main endourological international meetings (EAU, AUA, WCE, and SIU) during 2011–2019. We detected all invited speakers at plenary sessions regarding fURS or PCNL. The proportion of fURS and PCNL talks was evaluated yearly during the study period. In order to analyze plenary session speaker composition, we estimated and compared the mean number of talks per speaker according to surgical technique. We also analyzed possible differences in age distribution according to the topic of the talk as well as the presence of young (i.e., < 45 years) speakers. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: During the last 10 years, a total of 498 plenary talks were found. Of those, 260 (52.2%), 211 (42.4%), and 27 (5.4%) discussed PCNL, fURS, or both, respectively. PCNL was more frequently discussed at the beginning and the end of the study period. Mean [SD] number of talks per speaker was higher for PCNL (2.9 [3.4] vs 1.6 [1.4], p < 0.001), meaning that a wider variety of speakers was invited to give fURS talks. Speakers discussing fURS were younger (median [interquartile range, IQR] age 48 [44–56] vs 52 [47–60] years, p < 0.001), and a higher proportion of young speakers was observed in the fURS group (26% vs 15% p < 0.001). PCNL speakers were more commonly discussing fURS than fURS speakers discussing PCNL (23% vs 17%, p = 0.43). Conclusions: We found a wider variety of speakers at fURS plenary sessions as compared to PCNL ones. It is easier and quicker to become an internationally recognized expert in the field of fURS rather than PCNL. PCNL speakers were able to master fURS more frequently than the other way around. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]