Matthew S Lee1, Mark Assmus2, Deepak Agarwal2, Tim Large2, Amy Krambeck3. 1. Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Northwestern University, 676 N. St. Clair, Suite 2300, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. matthew.lee@nm.org. 2. Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Methodist Hospital, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 3. Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Northwestern University, 676 N. St. Clair, Suite 2300, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a global survey to identify contemporary practice patterns of transurethral therapies for benign prostatic hypertrophy. METHODS: A REDCap survey was distributed to the ~ 3500 members of the Endourological Society. Surgeons completed demographic information and then selected the BPH therapies they perform 10 cases/year. There were four categories of BPH therapies: ablation, enucleation, resection/vaporization, and MIST (minimally invasive surgical technique). Within each category, there were subcategories to account for different energy modalities. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4. RESULTS: A total of 175 surgeons responded to our survey. Prostate resection/vaporization remained the most commonly utilized technique (51.9%, n = 147/283) followed by enucleation (22.6%, n = 64/283). Bipolar TURP (bTURP) was the most common modality for prostate resection (69.4%, n = 102/147). Holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) was the most common modality for enucleation (46.9%, n = 30/64). Urolift® was performed more often than Rezūm™ (55.9% vs. 44.1%, n = 19/34 vs. 15/34, respectively). Among surgeons performing ablation, country of practice was a significantly associated with length of stay (LOS), p < 0.0001. For surgeons performing enucleation, academic institution and completion of a fellowship were associated with postoperative day (POD) 1 catheter removal (p = 0.0240 and p = 0.020, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary, global survey of the Endourology Society, resection/vaporization techniques were the most commonly performed. Rates of MISTs remained relatively low at 12.1%. Academic institution and fellowship status were associated with shorter catheterization times and LOS for certain surgical categories.
PURPOSE: To perform a global survey to identify contemporary practice patterns of transurethral therapies for benign prostatic hypertrophy. METHODS: A REDCap survey was distributed to the ~ 3500 members of the Endourological Society. Surgeons completed demographic information and then selected the BPH therapies they perform 10 cases/year. There were four categories of BPH therapies: ablation, enucleation, resection/vaporization, and MIST (minimally invasive surgical technique). Within each category, there were subcategories to account for different energy modalities. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4. RESULTS: A total of 175 surgeons responded to our survey. Prostate resection/vaporization remained the most commonly utilized technique (51.9%, n = 147/283) followed by enucleation (22.6%, n = 64/283). Bipolar TURP (bTURP) was the most common modality for prostate resection (69.4%, n = 102/147). Holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) was the most common modality for enucleation (46.9%, n = 30/64). Urolift® was performed more often than Rezūm™ (55.9% vs. 44.1%, n = 19/34 vs. 15/34, respectively). Among surgeons performing ablation, country of practice was a significantly associated with length of stay (LOS), p < 0.0001. For surgeons performing enucleation, academic institution and completion of a fellowship were associated with postoperative day (POD) 1 catheter removal (p = 0.0240 and p = 0.020, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary, global survey of the Endourology Society, resection/vaporization techniques were the most commonly performed. Rates of MISTs remained relatively low at 12.1%. Academic institution and fellowship status were associated with shorter catheterization times and LOS for certain surgical categories.
Authors: R Sosnowski; C De Nunzio; S Ahyai; R Autorino; A Bachmann; A Briganti; G Novara; C Füllhase; N Thiruchelvam Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2015-01-24 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Peter Gilling; Neil Barber; Mohamed Bidair; Paul Anderson; Mark Sutton; Tev Aho; Eugene Kramolowsky; Andrew Thomas; Barrett Cowan; Ronald P Kaufman; Andrew Trainer; Andrew Arther; Gopal Badlani; Mark Plante; Mihir Desai; Leo Doumanian; Alexis E Te; Mark DeGuenther; Claus Roehrborn Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Scott E Regenbogen; Anne H Cain-Nielsen; Edward C Norton; Lena M Chen; John D Birkmeyer; Jonathan S Skinner Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Claus G Roehrborn; Jack Barkin; Steven N Gange; Neal D Shore; Jonathan L Giddens; Damien M Bolton; Barrett E Cowan; Anthony L Cantwell; Kevin T McVary; Alexis E Te; Shahram S Gholami; William G Moseley; Peter T Chin; William T Dowling; Sheldon J Freedman; Peter F Incze; K Scott Coffield; Sean Herron; Prem Rashid; Daniel B Rukstalis Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Naeem Bhojani; Mohamed Bidair; Kevin C Zorn; Andrew Trainer; Andrew Arther; Eugene Kramolowsky; Leo Doumanian; Dean Elterman; Ronald P Kaufman; James Lingeman; Amy Krambeck; Gregg Eure; Gopal Badlani; Mark Plante; Edward Uchio; Greg Gin; Larry Goldenberg; Ryan Paterson; Alan So; Mitch Humphreys; Steven Kaplan; Jay Motola; Mihir Desai; Claus Roehrborn Journal: Urology Date: 2019-05-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Marco Raber; Noor N P Buchholz; Augusto Vercesi; Nashaat A Hendawi; Vincenzo Inneo; Giuseppe Di Paola; Lorenzo Tessa; Ismail M Hassan Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2018-07-05
Authors: Jens Köllermann; Benedikt Hoeh; Daniel Ruppel; Kevin Smith; Henning Reis; Mike Wenzel; Felix Preisser; Marina Kosiba; Philipp Mandel; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Andreas Becker; Felix K H Chun; Peter Wild; Luis A Kluth Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 4.535