Search

Assessment and management of congenital penile curvature (PC) can be variable. Methods for correction of PC usually are dependent on degree of PC which is reliant on how degree is assessed. We sought to assess the confidence and accuracy of measuring PC and hence management using case-based examples. A survey was emailed to members of the Societies for Pediatric Urology. Demographic information, management strategies for PC, and self-reported confidence in measuring PC were assessed. A Likert scale measured self-confidence. Case scenarios were used to assess ability to measure PC and methods of correction. The cases consisted of three computer-generated penis model images with arc-type ventral curvature and one image of lateral curvature in an infant. The response rate was 30% (108/355). The mean confidence score was 3.6 ± 0.8 (3-fairly confident; 4-very confident). In clinic, 89% of urologists used eyeball estimates to assess PC; 5% used both eyeball and goniometer. In the operating room, 71% used eyeball estimates, 8% used goniometer, and 16% used both. If sole decision-maker, urologists recommend surgical correction of PC over observation at median 30° (IQR 21–30°). At a median of 45°, there was a shift in corrective surgical preference from dorsal plication (DP) (IQR 30–54°) to ventral lengthening (IQR 34–60°). Urologists underestimated PC degree for all cases (summary table). For all cases, there was no association between years in practice or confidence level on estimated PC degree. In case 1, only 24% of urologists would correct a mean estimate of 23° PC; those who would correct had a higher mean PC estimate vs those who would not (28° vs 21°, p < 0.001). Case 2 and 4 had similar estimations and correction methods. In case 2, those who chose VL had a higher mean PC estimate vs those who did not (43° vs 37°, p < 0.01), but no estimate difference was seen for DP (p = 0.52). In case 4 with lateral PC, those who chose DP had a higher mean PC estimate vs those who did not (41° vs 33°, p = 0.049). Yet in case 3, there was no difference in PC estimate in urologists who chose VL vs not (57° vs 53°, p = 0.16). A uniform underestimation of PC existed despite self-reported confidence in the ability to measure PC. An increasing willingness to perform surgical correction was demonstrated with a shift towards VL for ventral curvature and less so for lateral curvature as PC worsens. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the impact of the Urology Collaborative Online Video Didactic (COViD) lecture series series on resident knowledge as a supplement to resident education during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic., Methods: One hundred thirty-nine urology residents were voluntarily recruited from 8 institutions. A 20-question test, based on 5 COViD lectures, was administered before and after watching the lectures. Pre- and posttest scores (percent correct) and score changes (posttest minus pretest score) were assessed considering demographic data and number of lectures watched. Multiple linear regression determined predictors of improved scores., Results: Of residents recruited, 95 and 71 took the pre- and posttests. Median number of lectures watched was 3. There was an overall increase in correct scores from pretest to posttest (45% vs 57%, P < .01). Watching any lectures vs none led to higher posttest scores (60% vs 44%, P < .01) and score changes (+16% vs +1%, P < .01). There was an increase in baseline pretest scores by post-graduate year (PGY) (P < .01); however there were no significant differences in posttest or score changes by PGY. When accounting for lectures watched, PGY, and time between lecture and posttest, being a PGY6 (P = .01) and watching 3-5 lectures (P < .01) had higher overall correct posttest scores. Watching 3-5 lectures led to greater score changes (P < .001-.04). Over 65% of residents stated the COViD lectures had a large or very large impact on their education., Conclusions: COViD lectures improved overall correct posttest scores and increased knowledge base for all resident levels. Furthermore, lectures largely impacted resident education during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To perform an updated literature review to assess compliance with outcomes use and reporting guidelines. In 1997, the Urodynamics Society recommended standards of efficacy to be used for evaluation of treatment outcomes in urinary incontinence (UI). Studies published shortly after the release of these standards reported generally low rates of adherence., Methods: We reviewed all 2017 articles related to UI in 3 urologic journals (Journal of Urology [JU], Neurourology and Urodynamics [NU], and Urology [UR]). Articles were assessed for compliance with 19 standards across 3 categories (methodology, pretreatment, and post-treatment). Analysis focused on overall and category specific compliance, as well as comparison of compliance between journals., Results: A total of 78 articles met inclusion criteria for analysis. The mean overall compliance was 52% for all standards. JU demonstrated a higher compliance (63%) as compared to NU (50%) and UR (46%) (P <.01). No articles reviewed demonstrated 100% compliance with all standards. Only 23%, 6%, and 12% of JU, NU, and UR articles, respectively, demonstrated at least 75% compliance with all standards. In comparison of subcategory compliance, JU demonstrated a statistically higher methodology compliance (P <.01). In contrast, compliance with both pre- and post-treatment standards across all 3 journals demonstrated no statistically significant differences., Conclusion: Overall, we found that a significant percentage of recent study on UI fails to meet suggested standards for use and reporting of outcomes. These data suggest that continued efforts are needed to improve the quality and reporting of UI research., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)