Search

Objective: To compare continence outcomes in post-prostatectomy patients undergoing supervised in-person versus online pelvic floor muscle training and pelvic floor education (iPMFT vs oPFMT/PFE). Despite the proven benefit of in-person PFMT for urinary incontinence (UI) following prostatectomy, numerous barriers impede access. We developed a comprehensive online program to deliver oPFMT/PFE., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients receiving iPFMT versus oPFMT/PFE with minimum 12-month follow-up. Outcomes were assessed at 3 weeks, 3-, 6-, and 12 months following robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using validated ICIQ-MLUTS and IIQ-7 questionnaires and additional items (daily pad use [PPD] and satisfaction). The primary study outcome was ICIQ-MLUTS SUI domain score (SDS). Secondary outcomes were PPD, PPD cure (0 PPD at 12 months), SUI cure (12-month SDS=baseline score), and QOL score (IIQ-7 Sum)., Results: Analysis included 41 men. Though men enrolled in oPFMT/PFE demonstrated lower SUI domain scores than iPFMT at most time points (3wk P <.01, 3 mo P = .04, 6 mo P = .15, 12 mo P = .04), the rate of improvement from 3 weeks to other time points was similar between groups (P = NS at all time points). SDS Cure was no different for oPFMT/PFE (75%, 15/20) compared to iPFMT (60%, 12/20, P = .3). PPD and IIQ-7 were also similar at all time points and demonstrated a similar rate of decrease over time through 12 months., Conclusion: Significant and similar improvements in UI and QOL are seen both in men completing iPFMT or oPFMT/PFE programs. Our novel online program provides another option to improve PFMT/PFE access in men undergoing RALP., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Rapp is the owner of HFITNESS, LLC and creator and owner of the website and copyright for educational materials of the reported oPFMT/PFE. Conflict of Interest exemption and related management plan was approved by the UVA COI Committee (2018–17). As part of this plan, enrollment was performed by study research coordinators without Dr. Rapp present. All subjects were informed of Dr. Rapp’s financial interest in HFITNESS, LLC and provided with ombudsperson contact information to approach if they believed that Dr. Rapp’s financial interest interfered with the course of research. Dr. Rapp provided website and program tutorial at program initiation. All outcomes data collection and related database entry, including validated questionnaires, was performed independently by clinical research coordinators. All data and statistical analysis were performed independently by UVA Department of Public Health Sciences. An independent faculty member not participating as a study investigator was also appointed to review project results to ensure data integrity., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Grant funding to Urology has decreased over the last decade. Documented lack of gender and race diversity at the faculty level raises concerns for funding disparities. This study sought to characterize disparities based upon race and gender in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding data to Urologic faculty., Methods and Materials: Data from 145 ACGME accredited Urology residency programs incorporating faculty gender and underrepresented in medicine (URiM) status was utilized. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Report Tool was queried between 1985 and 2023 for grants related to current Urology faculty. URiM status, gender, years of practice, academic rank, and Doximity residency program rank were factors in multivariable analysis., Results: A total of 2,131 faculty were included. Three hundred one Urologists received 793 urologic grants for a total of $993,919,052 in funding. By race, grants were awarded to: White 72.9%, Asian 21.8%, Hispanic 3.0%, Black 2.1%. Men received 708 grants (89.3%) worth $917,083,475 total. Women received 85 grants (10.7%) worth $76,835,577 total. Likelihood of being awarded a grant was significantly associated with non-URiM status (p < 0.001) and men (p < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, Doximity rank (p < 0.001) and academic rank (p < 0.001) were significant predictors of receiving a grant; male gender, URiM status, and years of practice were not. Academic rank was also a significant predictor of number of grants received (p = 0.04) and total funding (p = 0.04); years of practice, Doximity rank, URiM status, and gender were not., Conclusions: NIH grants were more likely awarded to higher ranked faculty from higher Doximity ranked institutions with no differences based on URiM status or gender.

Background: Although pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is widely shown to improve post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI), numerous barriers impede access to formal PFMT and include the limited availability of specialized therapists and financial or scheduling barriers. To address these barriers, we developed a novel online program delivering comprehensive long-term PFMT, pelvic floor education (PFE), and dietary/behavioral modification education. This study is a prospective interim analysis of online PFMT/PFE (oPFMT/PFE), with focus on feasibility, satisfaction, and continence outcomes., Methods: Patients anticipating robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) were recruited (6/2021-9/2022) for oPFMT/PFE. oPFMT/PFE comprises a 12-month program of 3 phases, including multiple exercises with varied contraction types and duration, and comprehensive dietary and behavioral technique education. Incontinence and quality of life (QOL) outcomes are assessed at 3 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months following RALP using validated International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-MLUTS) and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) questionnaires and additional items assessing satisfaction, improvement, and daily pad use. Primary study outcomes included ICIQ-MLUTS stress urinary incontinence (SUI) domain score (SDS) and SUI cure [ICIQ SUI domain score (SDS) =0]. Interim 6-month analysis was performed using mixed effects linear regression and mixed effects Poisson regression., Results: Analysis included 21 men (64±6 years). At 6-month follow-up, men undergoing oPFMT/PFE showed significant improvement in SDS compared to the 3-week time point [mean ± standard error (SE) =1.05±0.24 vs. 0.45±0.17, P=0.011], but still experienced higher scores than at baseline (P=0.017). Six-month patient-reported improvement averaged 7.42±0.74 (10-point Likert scale). All (100%) of 19 respondents (2 missing data) found the program easy to use, educational, and would recommend it to others, with 89% expressing satisfaction with the program. During patient interview at 6-month follow-up, no men reported inability to access the program online or any adverse events. Finally, IIQ-7 score improved significantly from the 3-week timepoint (4.47±1.10) at both time points (3-month 1.14±0.44, P<0.001 and 6-month 1.10±0.37, P<0.001), and neither 3- nor 6-month scores differed from baseline (P=0.808 and P=0.444, respectively)., Conclusions: Our novel oPFMT/PFE yields significant improvements to validated urinary incontinence (UI) and QOL measures, providing a valuable and accessible treatment option for PPI., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tau.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tau-23-436/coif). D.E.R. is the owner of HFITNESS, LLC and creator and owner of the website and copyright for educational materials of the reported oPFMT/PFE. Conflict of Interest exemption and related management plan was approved by the UVA COI Committee (2018-17). As part of this plan, enrollment was performed by study research coordinators without D.E.R. present. All subjects were informed of D.E.R.’s financial interest in HFITNESS, LLC and provided with ombudsperson contact information to approach if they believed that D.E.R.’s financial interest interfered with the course of research. D.E.R. provided website and program tutorial at program initiation. All outcome data collection and related database entry, including validated questionnaires, was performed independently by clinical research coordinators. All data and statistical analysis were performed independently by UVA Department of Public Health Sciences. An independent faculty member not participating as a study investigator was also appointed to review project results in order to ensure data integrity. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2023 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To characterize academic productivity for underrepresented minorities (URMs) vs non-URMs and by gender in Urology., Methods: A database was created from 145 Urology residency programs. URM status was determined by origin of name, photo, biography, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Doximity. A PubMed query was performed for publication output. URM status, gender, post-graduate year/years of practice, and Doximity residency rank were factors in multivariable analysis., Results: For residents, the median total publications was 2 [1,5] for URMs and 2 [1,5] for non-URMs (P=.54). The median first/last author publications was 1 [0,2] for URMs and 1 [0,2] for non-URMs (P=.79). The median total publications was 2 [0,4] for women and 2 [1,6] for men (P=.003). The median first/last author publications was 1 [0,2] for women and 1 [0,2] for men (P=.14). For faculty, the median total publications was 12 [3,32] for URMs and 19 [6,45] for non-URMs (P=.0002). The median first/last author publications was 4.5 [1,12] for URMs and 7 [2,20] for non-URM faculty (P=.0002). The median total publications was 11 [5,25] for women and 20 [6,49] for men (P<.0001). The median first/last author publications was 4 [1,11] for women and 8 [2,22] for men (P<.0001). On multivariable analysis, there was no difference in total publications and first/last author publications for URMs vs non-URMs. There remained a difference between genders for residents and faculty with total publications but not first/last author publications (P=.002/P=.10 residents, P=.004/P=.07 faculty)., Conclusion: Academic productivity was not different in URMs and non-URMs for both residents and faculty. Men residents and faculty had more total publications compared to women., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare comprehensive continence outcomes in patients receiving pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) vs standard unsupervised home pelvic floor exercise therapy (UPFE)., Methods: As part of the UVA prostatectomy functional outcomes program, participating patients complete a 12-month PFMT program under FPMRS specialist supervision. We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected longitudinal outcomes in patients receiving PFMT vs UPFE through 12-month follow-up. Primary study outcome was ICIQ-MLUTS SUI domain score (SDS). Secondary outcomes included daily pad use (PPD), SUI Cure (SDS=0), and quality of life score (IIQ-7). Multilevel mixed effects linear regression was used to model SDS over time., Results: Analysis included 40 men. No difference in patient characteristics was seen in comparison of PFMT vs UPFE cohorts (P = NS, all comparisons). Mean predicted SDS was significantly better in the PFMT vs UPFE cohorts at 6-month (0.81 ± 0.21 vs 1.75 ± 0.34, respectively) (P = .014) and 12-month (0.72 ± 0.17 vs 1.67 ± 0.30, respectively) (P = .004) time points. At 12-month follow-up, 11 (55%) vs 4 (20%) patients reported absence of SUI in PFMT vs UPFE cohorts, respectively. Predicted probabilities of SUI cure in PFMT vs UPFE cohorts at 12months were 0.52 ± 0.14 vs 0.23 ± 0.13, respectively (P = .14). At 12-month follow-up, the mean predicted PPD and IIQ score was 0.19 ± 0.10 vs 0.79 ± 0.33 and 2.86 ± 0.86 vs 2.55 ± 1.07 in PFMT vs UPFE cohorts, respectively (P = NS)., Conclusion: In-person, FMPRS-directed PFMT is associated with improved SUI domain scores following robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, a finding durable through 12-month follow-up., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We characterize factors associated with recruitment of underrepresented in medicine urology trainees and faculty to academic institutions given the excessive disparity between urology and other fields of medicine., Methods: A database of urology faculty and residents in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education programs was created. Demographic data were obtained from departmental websites, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Doximity. Program prestige was defined by U.S. News and World Report rankings. Program location and city size were determined using the U.S. Census data. Multivariable analysis was performed assessing the association of gender, AUA section, city size, and rankings on underrepresented in medicine recruitment., Results: Of urologists in this study 8.7% were underrepresented in medicine status. More women urologists were underrepresented in medicine (31.4%) than non-underrepresented in medicine (21.3%; P < .001). Factors predictive of more underrepresented in medicine urologists were practice in South Central AUA section (OR 2.1, P = .04), and medium metro areas (OR 1.6, P < .01). Among residents, factors predictive of more underrepresented in medicine urologists were female gender ( P < .001), living in medium metro areas ( P = .03), and training in top 10 programs ( P = .001). Underrepresented in medicine faculty were more likely to be women compared to non-underrepresented in medicine faculty ( P = .05). Pearson correlation test found no association between the presence of underrepresented in medicine faculty and underrepresented in medicine residents (r = 0.20)., Conclusions: Underrepresented in medicine urology residents and faculty were more likely to be women, compared to non-underrepresented in medicine residents and faculty. Underrepresented in medicine residents are more prevalent in medium metro areas and in top 10 programs. More underrepresented in medicine faculty status was not associated with more underrepresented in medicine residents.

Objective: To determine the outcomes and eventual career paths for unmatched applicants by evaluating a historical cohort of unmatched applicants in the Urology Match., Methods: The 2008-2014 AUA Match lists were obtained from the Society of Academic Urologists and 730 unique applicants were identified with at least one unmatched result. Additional information such as preliminary training and eventual specialty choice were obtained from publicly available sources. Comparative analysis with univariable and multivariable analysis was performed between eventual urologists and those who chose alternative career paths., Results: Overall, 43.5% (318/730) of unmatched urology applicants subsequently continued their interest in Urology and 77.4% (246/317) of initially unsuccessful applicants eventually became urologists. Males (80.9%, P = .01), Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) degree (62.5%, P = <.001), and those undergoing a research year compared to a preliminary surgery year (85.2% vs 72.0% respectively, P = .047) had an increased likelihood of successfully becoming a urologist. The most common alternative specialty choices were Internal Medicine (13.8%), General Surgery (12.9%) and Anesthesiology (11.9%)., Conclusion: Urology is a competitive surgical sub-specialty. Surprisingly, approximately 3 in 4 unmatched urology applicants who continue their interest in urology will eventually obtain a residency position. However, only 33.7% of initially unmatched students ultimately became urologists. Unmatched applicants have several viable pathways to obtain a urological residency position. Male gender, a DO degree, and a research year are associated with successfully obtaining a urology residency position., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Extirpative surgery can play an important role in the management strategies for locally advanced urothelial carcinoma. The current review is intended to relay current information reported in the literature over the past 12 months regarding the usage of surgical resection in advanced urothelial cancers of the bladder and upper tracts, document operative outcomes, and oncologic efficacy., Recent Findings: Multimodal therapy is key to long-term overall survival for advanced urothelial carcinoma. Radical cystectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection can be performed after an observable response to chemotherapy or immunotherapy for cT4 or cN2 and higher node-positive disease of the bladder. Moreover, radical cystectomy after trimodal therapy similarly yields durable local response. For upper tract disease, nephroureterectomy with regional lymphadenectomy is the primary surgical modality used often in conjunction with perioperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy., Summary: Surgical resection as a monotherapy is not curative in patients with locally advanced urothelial carcinoma. However, its use in combination with systemic agents can potentiate durable long-term survival in a subset of patients. Future studies investigating patient-reported outcomes among those receiving consolidative surgery for locally advanced disease are warranted to guide clinical recommendations., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Our objective is to assess the impact of the virtual interview (VI) format on urology residency interviews during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspectives of program directors (PDs)., Methods: An anonymous survey was sent to PDs of American Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited urology residency programs. Questions were designed to evaluate how VIs affected programs' assessment of applicants, interview logistics, and overall perspectives regarding in-person and virtual interviews., Results: A total of 42 PDs (31%) responded to our survey. VIs negatively affected programs' ability to assess applicants' fit with their residency program (71%), commitment to urology along with their ability to function as a resident (67%), and personality and communication skills (71%) when compared to in-person interviews. Fifty percent of PDs reported that they relied more heavily on objective metrics when ranking applicants, compared to prior years. VIs were more economical than in-person interviews for all participating programs, with each program saving an average of $3,135 in interview-related costs. Additionally, 33% of PDs reported that VIs were less time-consuming when compared to in-person interviews, with 26% of PDs reporting that they were able to interview more applicants. Only 19% of PDs reported that VIs were better than in-person interviews. Given the option, 60% of PDs intend on hosting both virtual and in-person interviews moving forward, while 9% and 31% of programs intend to exclusively host virtual and in-person interviews, respectively., Conclusions: PDs perceived VIs to be less reliable than in-person interviews for subjective evaluation of applicants; however, many PDs still desire to integrate VIs in future application cycles.