PURPOSE: Several options exist for the surgical correction of male stress urinary incontinence including periurethral bulking agents, artificial urinary sphincters and the recently introduced male urethral slings. We investigated contemporary trends in the use of these treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Annualized case log data for incontinence surgeries from certifying and recertifying urologists were obtained from the ABU (American Board of Urology), ranging from 2004 to 2010. Chi-square tests and logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between surgeon characteristics (type of certification, annual volume, practice type and practice location) and the use of incontinence procedures. RESULTS: Among the 2,036 nonpediatric case logs examined the number of incontinence treatments reported for certification has steadily increased over time from 1,936 to 3,366 treatments per year from 2004 to 2010 (p = 0.008). Nearly a fifth of urologists reported placing at least 1 sling. The proportion of endoscopic procedures decreased from 80% of all incontinence procedures in 2004 to 60% in 2010, but they remained the exclusive incontinence procedure performed by 49% of urologists. A urologist's increased use of endoscopic treatments was associated with a decreased likelihood of performing a sling procedure (OR 0.5, p <0.0005). Artificial urinary sphincter use remained stable, accounting for 12% of procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Incontinence procedures are on the rise. Urethral slings have been widely adopted and account for the largest increase among treatment modalities. Endoscopic treatments continue to be commonly performed and may represent overuse in the face of improved techniques. Further research is required to validate these trends.
PURPOSE: Several options exist for the surgical correction of male stress urinary incontinence including periurethral bulking agents, artificial urinary sphincters and the recently introduced male urethral slings. We investigated contemporary trends in the use of these treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Annualized case log data for incontinence surgeries from certifying and recertifying urologists were obtained from the ABU (American Board of Urology), ranging from 2004 to 2010. Chi-square tests and logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between surgeon characteristics (type of certification, annual volume, practice type and practice location) and the use of incontinence procedures. RESULTS: Among the 2,036 nonpediatric case logs examined the number of incontinence treatments reported for certification has steadily increased over time from 1,936 to 3,366 treatments per year from 2004 to 2010 (p = 0.008). Nearly a fifth of urologists reported placing at least 1 sling. The proportion of endoscopic procedures decreased from 80% of all incontinence procedures in 2004 to 60% in 2010, but they remained the exclusive incontinence procedure performed by 49% of urologists. A urologist's increased use of endoscopic treatments was associated with a decreased likelihood of performing a sling procedure (OR 0.5, p <0.0005). Artificial urinary sphincter use remained stable, accounting for 12% of procedures. CONCLUSIONS:Incontinence procedures are on the rise. Urethral slings have been widely adopted and account for the largest increase among treatment modalities. Endoscopic treatments continue to be commonly performed and may represent overuse in the face of improved techniques. Further research is required to validate these trends.
Authors: Ricarda M Bauer; Christian Gozzi; Wilhelm Hübner; Victor W Nitti; Giacomo Novara; Andrew Peterson; Jaspreet S Sandhu; Christian G Stief Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Joachim W Thüroff; Paul Abrams; Karl-Erik Andersson; Walter Artibani; Christopher R Chapple; Marcus J Drake; Christian Hampel; Andreas Neisius; Annette Schröder; Andrea Tubaro Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David F Penson; Dale McLerran; Ziding Feng; Lin Li; Peter C Albertsen; Frank D Gilliland; Ann Hamilton; Richard M Hoffman; Robert A Stephenson; Arnold L Potosky; Janet L Stanford Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matthew J Ziegelmann; Brian J Linder; Marcelino E Rivera; Boyd R Viers; Daniel S Elliott Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Javier C Angulo; Ignacio Arance; Antonio Ojea; Manuel Carballo; Andrés Rodríguez; Javier Pereira; Miguel Rebassa; Antoine Teyrouz; Gregorio Escribano; Fernando Teba; Blanca Madurga; Francisco E Martins; Francisco Cruz Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: May Darwish-Yassine; Manijeh Berenji; Diane Wing; Glenn Copeland; Raymond Y Demers; Carol Garlinghouse; Angela Fagerlin; Gail E Newth; Laurel Northouse; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; David Rovner; Jerry Sims; John T Wei Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2013-11-10 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Jonathan L Silberstein; Stephen A Poon; Alexandra C Maschino; William T Lowrance; Tullika Garg; Harry W Herr; S Machele Donat; Guido Dalbagni; Bernard H Bochner; Jaspreet S Sandhu Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-09-23 Impact factor: 7.450