中东地区泌尿科医生对微创手术设备治疗良性前列腺增生症的认识和依从性

IF 0.7 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Raed A. Azhar, M. Elkoushy, Mohnna Subahi, Mahmoud Faisal, Abdulaziz M Bakhsh, Majed Sejiny, Salim Bagasi, Waseem Tayeb
{"title":"中东地区泌尿科医生对微创手术设备治疗良性前列腺增生症的认识和依从性","authors":"Raed A. Azhar, M. Elkoushy, Mohnna Subahi, Mahmoud Faisal, Abdulaziz M Bakhsh, Majed Sejiny, Salim Bagasi, Waseem Tayeb","doi":"10.4103/ua.ua_106_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n The objective is to assess urologists’ awareness of and compliance with available minimally invasive devices (MIDs) for the management of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).\n \n \n \n An online Internet-based survey was sent to urologists through E-mail. Baseline characteristics included age, location and duration of practice, and number of prostatectomies performed in the previous 12 months. Awareness is based on the surgeons’ opinions about their advantages and drawbacks.\n \n \n \n A total of 308 participants responded to the survey; 87.0% were most aware of Rezūm, followed by Urolift (59.1%), Aquablation (33.1%), and combined temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND), and Zenflow (17%). In the past 12 months, 84.1% used MIDs in their practice. A total of 47.1% of respondents believe that these devices have comparable outcomes with the traditional interventions, 52.9% are unsure of their long-term benefits, and 71% feel that it is too early to judge. Forty-three percent believe that these devices are reserved only for high-risk patients, and 52% recommend that they should be available in their centers. Most respondents (90.9%) prefer Rezūm, Urolift (28.2%), and Aquablation (12.6%) because they are less invasive, less time-consuming, and have few complications. Interestingly, 59% recommend MIDs to their family members.\n \n \n \n Most respondents are more aware of Rezūm, Urolift, and Aquablation than iTIND and Zenflow. In addition, most respondents agree that these MIDs and traditional prostate interventions have comparable outcomes despite the former lacking long-term outcome assessment. High cost and no long-term data may influence the widespread acceptance of these MIDs.\n","PeriodicalId":23633,"journal":{"name":"Urology Annals","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Awareness and compliance of urologists in the Middle East with minimally invasive surgical devices for the management of benign prostate hyperplasia\",\"authors\":\"Raed A. Azhar, M. Elkoushy, Mohnna Subahi, Mahmoud Faisal, Abdulaziz M Bakhsh, Majed Sejiny, Salim Bagasi, Waseem Tayeb\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ua.ua_106_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n The objective is to assess urologists’ awareness of and compliance with available minimally invasive devices (MIDs) for the management of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH).\\n \\n \\n \\n An online Internet-based survey was sent to urologists through E-mail. Baseline characteristics included age, location and duration of practice, and number of prostatectomies performed in the previous 12 months. Awareness is based on the surgeons’ opinions about their advantages and drawbacks.\\n \\n \\n \\n A total of 308 participants responded to the survey; 87.0% were most aware of Rezūm, followed by Urolift (59.1%), Aquablation (33.1%), and combined temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND), and Zenflow (17%). In the past 12 months, 84.1% used MIDs in their practice. A total of 47.1% of respondents believe that these devices have comparable outcomes with the traditional interventions, 52.9% are unsure of their long-term benefits, and 71% feel that it is too early to judge. Forty-three percent believe that these devices are reserved only for high-risk patients, and 52% recommend that they should be available in their centers. Most respondents (90.9%) prefer Rezūm, Urolift (28.2%), and Aquablation (12.6%) because they are less invasive, less time-consuming, and have few complications. Interestingly, 59% recommend MIDs to their family members.\\n \\n \\n \\n Most respondents are more aware of Rezūm, Urolift, and Aquablation than iTIND and Zenflow. In addition, most respondents agree that these MIDs and traditional prostate interventions have comparable outcomes despite the former lacking long-term outcome assessment. High cost and no long-term data may influence the widespread acceptance of these MIDs.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":23633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urology Annals\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urology Annals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_106_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology Annals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_106_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的是评估泌尿科医生对用于治疗良性前列腺增生症(BPH)的微创设备(MIDs)的认识和使用情况。 我们通过电子邮件向泌尿科医生发送了一份基于互联网的在线调查。基线特征包括年龄、执业地点和时间,以及在过去 12 个月中进行的前列腺切除术的数量。认知度基于外科医生对其优点和缺点的看法。 共有 308 位参与者对调查做出了回应;87.0% 的人最了解 Rezūm,其次是 Urolift(59.1%)、Aquablation(33.1%)、组合式临时植入镍钛诺装置 (iTIND) 和 Zenflow(17%)。在过去 12 个月中,84.1% 的受访者使用过 MID。47.1%的受访者认为这些装置的疗效与传统干预措施相当,52.9%的受访者不确定其长期益处,71%的受访者认为现在下结论为时尚早。43%的受访者认为这些设备只适用于高风险患者,52%的受访者建议在其所在中心提供这些设备。大多数受访者(90.9%)更喜欢 Rezūm、Urolift(28.2%)和 Aquablation(12.6%),因为它们创伤小、耗时少、并发症少。有趣的是,59% 的受访者向家人推荐 MIDs。 与 iTIND 和 Zenflow 相比,大多数受访者更了解 Rezūm、Urolift 和 Aquablation。此外,大多数受访者都认为这些 MID 与传统的前列腺介入治疗效果相当,尽管前者缺乏长期效果评估。高昂的费用和缺乏长期数据可能会影响这些 MID 的广泛接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Awareness and compliance of urologists in the Middle East with minimally invasive surgical devices for the management of benign prostate hyperplasia
The objective is to assess urologists’ awareness of and compliance with available minimally invasive devices (MIDs) for the management of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). An online Internet-based survey was sent to urologists through E-mail. Baseline characteristics included age, location and duration of practice, and number of prostatectomies performed in the previous 12 months. Awareness is based on the surgeons’ opinions about their advantages and drawbacks. A total of 308 participants responded to the survey; 87.0% were most aware of Rezūm, followed by Urolift (59.1%), Aquablation (33.1%), and combined temporary implantable nitinol device (iTIND), and Zenflow (17%). In the past 12 months, 84.1% used MIDs in their practice. A total of 47.1% of respondents believe that these devices have comparable outcomes with the traditional interventions, 52.9% are unsure of their long-term benefits, and 71% feel that it is too early to judge. Forty-three percent believe that these devices are reserved only for high-risk patients, and 52% recommend that they should be available in their centers. Most respondents (90.9%) prefer Rezūm, Urolift (28.2%), and Aquablation (12.6%) because they are less invasive, less time-consuming, and have few complications. Interestingly, 59% recommend MIDs to their family members. Most respondents are more aware of Rezūm, Urolift, and Aquablation than iTIND and Zenflow. In addition, most respondents agree that these MIDs and traditional prostate interventions have comparable outcomes despite the former lacking long-term outcome assessment. High cost and no long-term data may influence the widespread acceptance of these MIDs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Urology Annals
Urology Annals UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
审稿时长
31 weeks
×
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