Impact of Urodynamic Learning on the Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Issue on Young and Senior Urologists and Reasons to Attend a Voiding Dysfunction Course. Issue 1 (3rd April 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: RODRIGUES, Paulo; HERING, Flávio; CAMPAGNARI, João Carlos
• Is Part Of: LUTS. Volume 6:Issue 1(2014)
• Page Start: 41
• Page End: 45
• Publication Date: 2013-04-03
• Subjects: Urology -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals; Urinary Tract Physiological Phenomena -- Periodicals; 616.62
• DOI: 10.1111/luts.12017
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1757-5664

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="luts12017-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Objectives</title> <p>The aims of this study were to compare the impact of urodynamic training on the young urologists after fellowship training as well as on senior urologists who attend regular courses on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and their capacity to do and interpret urodynamic studies.</p> </sec> <sec id="luts12017-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>Sixty‐four consecutive young urologists admitted to fellowship program on voiding dysfunctions and 110 senior urologists attending to periodical meetings were interviewed before and after the 3‐day‐courses regarding their ability to set, interpret and do urodynamic studies. They were also questioned on the reasons that led them to attend the courses and how they use the new concepts to manage BPH. A rank of the used parameters to indicate transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in BPH patients were scored before and after the course.</p> </sec> <sec id="luts12017-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>Fellowship and senior urologists mainly attended the course because of lack of confidence and belief that this urological issue is too important to be disregarded. A significant portion of both groups do not trust third‐party examiners. More than 90% of the urologists acquired confidence in interpreting, setting and were able to do the exam after the course. The majority of both groups believed urodynamic study was essential to manage BPH, disregarding volume as the main reason to operate on patients. Many outdated parameters became less important on the decision to operate.</p> </sec> <sec id="luts12017-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>Doctors exposed to intensive or long urodynamic training dramatically changed their perceptions on the utility of this tool and became more attentive it.</p> </sec> </abstract>