Urethral instrumentation in men with artificial urinary sphincter: a national survey among Brazilian urologists.

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Vicktor Bruno Pereira Pinto, Jose de Bessa, José Antonio Penedo Prezotti, Karin Marise Jaeger Anzolch, Jose Ailton Fernandes, Cristiano Mendes Gomes
{"title":"Urethral instrumentation in men with artificial urinary sphincter: a national survey among Brazilian urologists.","authors":"Vicktor Bruno Pereira Pinto, Jose de Bessa, José Antonio Penedo Prezotti, Karin Marise Jaeger Anzolch, Jose Ailton Fernandes, Cristiano Mendes Gomes","doi":"10.1007/s00345-024-05407-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Urethral instrumentation (UI) in patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) demands technical considerations and poses a risk of urethral erosion, leading to serious clinical and legal consequences. We conducted a national survey to evaluate the knowledge and experience of Brazilian urologists with UI in these patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used an electronic survey distributed to members of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The survey included 19 multiple-choice questions assessing sociodemographic characteristics, practice patterns, AUS training, knowledge of AUS components and functionality, experience with UI in AUS patients, and interest in further training. Urologists were classified as 'competent' in AUS manipulation if they had prior experience and confidence in performing UI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 536 participants (median age 47 years [39-55]), 72.8% reported involvement in urological emergencies, with 89.9% indicating inadequate AUS training during residency. Only 29.7% had occasional or regular involvement with AUS surgeries. Of the participants, 53.4% had performed UI in men with an AUS. Prior UI had been attempted by healthcare staff in 36.2% of cases. Only 46.8% reported knowledge of AUS components and 45.1% felt competent in deactivating it. Regarding urethral catheterization, 47.2% knew the safe catheter diameter, and 20.9% identified safe catheterization duration. Overall, 45.1% self-declared competence in UI, yet many gave incorrect answers on catheter size and duration. Competence strongly correlated with knowledge of AUS components, regular implant involvement, and prior experience. Most (89.3%) expressed interest in additional training for UI.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights significant gaps in training and knowledge among Brazilian urologists regarding UI in AUS patients. These deficiencies underscore the potential for enhanced education to improve patient outcomes and reduce AUS-associated complications in Brazil and possibly broader international contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":23954,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Urology","volume":"43 1","pages":"36"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05407-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Urethral instrumentation (UI) in patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) demands technical considerations and poses a risk of urethral erosion, leading to serious clinical and legal consequences. We conducted a national survey to evaluate the knowledge and experience of Brazilian urologists with UI in these patients.

Methods: This study used an electronic survey distributed to members of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The survey included 19 multiple-choice questions assessing sociodemographic characteristics, practice patterns, AUS training, knowledge of AUS components and functionality, experience with UI in AUS patients, and interest in further training. Urologists were classified as 'competent' in AUS manipulation if they had prior experience and confidence in performing UI.

Results: Among 536 participants (median age 47 years [39-55]), 72.8% reported involvement in urological emergencies, with 89.9% indicating inadequate AUS training during residency. Only 29.7% had occasional or regular involvement with AUS surgeries. Of the participants, 53.4% had performed UI in men with an AUS. Prior UI had been attempted by healthcare staff in 36.2% of cases. Only 46.8% reported knowledge of AUS components and 45.1% felt competent in deactivating it. Regarding urethral catheterization, 47.2% knew the safe catheter diameter, and 20.9% identified safe catheterization duration. Overall, 45.1% self-declared competence in UI, yet many gave incorrect answers on catheter size and duration. Competence strongly correlated with knowledge of AUS components, regular implant involvement, and prior experience. Most (89.3%) expressed interest in additional training for UI.

Conclusion: This study highlights significant gaps in training and knowledge among Brazilian urologists regarding UI in AUS patients. These deficiencies underscore the potential for enhanced education to improve patient outcomes and reduce AUS-associated complications in Brazil and possibly broader international contexts.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
World Journal of Urology
World Journal of Urology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.80%
发文量
317
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY conveys regularly the essential results of urological research and their practical and clinical relevance to a broad audience of urologists in research and clinical practice. In order to guarantee a balanced program, articles are published to reflect the developments in all fields of urology on an internationally advanced level. Each issue treats a main topic in review articles of invited international experts. Free papers are unrelated articles to the main topic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信