PURPOSE: Significant improvement and high patient satisfaction are seen after artificial urinary sphincter implantation for male stress urinary incontinence. However, only a small percent of men are treated with an artificial urinary sphincter nationally. We defined trends in current artificial urinary sphincter use in the United States, specifically focusing on regional differences in use. Current rates of radical prostatectomy and the regional distribution of urologists were analyzed as possible factors to explain these disparities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data provided by American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, Minnesota on the number of artificial urinary sphincter units sold were analyzed by state, regional and city distribution. American Urological Association data on the number of urologists were used to estimate urologist use of artificial urinary sphincters. The number of radical prostatectomies reported by the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database were used to estimate artificial urinary sphincter use per radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: In the most populous states and cities generally the most artificial urinary sphincter units were purchased, the most urologists were reported and the most radical prostatectomies were performed. The proportional use of artificial urinary sphincters per radical prostatectomy by state varied from 1% to 10% (national average approximately 6%). The number of urologists per 100,000 men older than 50 years appeared uniform across states (national average 34). However, artificial urinary sphincter use by urologist appeared localized and concentrated. Nationally 1 artificial urinary sphincter unit was purchased for every 3 urologists in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial urinary sphincter use demonstrates considerable state and regional variation even when controlled for differences in the frequency of radical prostatectomy and the distribution of urologists. Overall the data suggest that artificial urinary sphincters may be underused in some areas of the country, particularly for post-prostatectomy incontinence.
PURPOSE: Significant improvement and high patient satisfaction are seen after artificial urinary sphincter implantation for male stress urinary incontinence. However, only a small percent of men are treated with an artificial urinary sphincter nationally. We defined trends in current artificial urinary sphincter use in the United States, specifically focusing on regional differences in use. Current rates of radical prostatectomy and the regional distribution of urologists were analyzed as possible factors to explain these disparities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data provided by American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, Minnesota on the number of artificial urinary sphincter units sold were analyzed by state, regional and city distribution. American Urological Association data on the number of urologists were used to estimate urologist use of artificial urinary sphincters. The number of radical prostatectomies reported by the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database were used to estimate artificial urinary sphincter use per radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: In the most populous states and cities generally the most artificial urinary sphincter units were purchased, the most urologists were reported and the most radical prostatectomies were performed. The proportional use of artificial urinary sphincters per radical prostatectomy by state varied from 1% to 10% (national average approximately 6%). The number of urologists per 100,000 men older than 50 years appeared uniform across states (national average 34). However, artificial urinary sphincter use by urologist appeared localized and concentrated. Nationally 1 artificial urinary sphincter unit was purchased for every 3 urologists in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial urinary sphincter use demonstrates considerable state and regional variation even when controlled for differences in the frequency of radical prostatectomy and the distribution of urologists. Overall the data suggest that artificial urinary sphincters may be underused in some areas of the country, particularly for post-prostatectomy incontinence.
Authors: Christopher J D Wallis; Sender Herschorn; Ying Liu; Lesley K Carr; Ronald T Kodama; Laurence H Klotz; Refik Saskin; Robert K Nam Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 1.862