| Autor: |
Azhar, Raed A., Elkoushy, Mohamed, Subahi, Mohnna, Faisal, Mahmoud, Bakhsh, Abdulaziz, Sejiny, Majed, Bagasi, Salim, Tayeb, Waseem |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Urology Annals; Apr-Jun2024, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p175-183, 9p |
| Abstrakt: |
Objectives: The objective is to assess urologists' awareness of and compliance with available minimally invasive devices (MIDs) for the management of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
