Urethral dilation in women: A questionnaire-based analysis of practice patterns

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives. To assess current practice patterns among urologists and to determine the perceived efficacy of urethral dilation. Urethral dilation has been advocated as a treatment for a variety of urologic disorders in women for several decades. Recent changes in Medicare reimbursement have again focused attention on this issue. Methods. A 15-item questionnaire was mailed to all urologists actively practicing in the state of Texas (n = 642). The questionnaire consisted of 12 items about indications for, technique of, and outcome of urethral dilation, and three demographic questions regarding location and type of practice and number of years since completing residency. Results. A total of 194 physicians completed and returned the questionnaire (30%). Overall, 48.2% of practitioners used dilation six or fewer times during the past year; 23.7% reported having used it more than 30 times. Most urologists used dilation for urethral syndrome only (61.1%), although urethral stricture was also a frequently reported condition requiring dilation (29%). Most urologists trained within the past decade (60.9%) reported never offering dilation for urethral syndrome; only 34.2% of the remainder never offered it (P = 0.002). Urologists normally performed this procedure with local or no anesthesia (85%) and most commonly dilated to 32F (45%). Overall, 21% of urologists trained more than 10 years ago considered dilation very or extremely successful in treating urethral syndrome; 0 of 42 trained more recently considered it to be this successful (P = 0.014). Conclusions. The use of urethral dilation in women remains controversial. Recently trained urologists use it less frequently and find it less efficacious than those who have been practicing for longer periods. Since such obvious biases exist, it is imperative that the clinical merit of urethral dilation be carefully scrutinized.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)37-43
Number of pages7
JournalUrology
Volume54
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1999

Fingerprint

Dilatation
Surveys and Questionnaires
Urethral Stricture
Internship and Residency
Medicare
Urologists
Anesthesia
Demography
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Urethral dilation in women : A questionnaire-based analysis of practice patterns. / Lemack, Gary E.; Foster, Barbara; Zimmern, Philippe E.

In: Urology, Vol. 54, No. 1, 07.1999, p. 37-43.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ef4e3466c25c4233a7b357961d08dabf,
title = "Urethral dilation in women: A questionnaire-based analysis of practice patterns",
abstract = "Objectives. To assess current practice patterns among urologists and to determine the perceived efficacy of urethral dilation. Urethral dilation has been advocated as a treatment for a variety of urologic disorders in women for several decades. Recent changes in Medicare reimbursement have again focused attention on this issue. Methods. A 15-item questionnaire was mailed to all urologists actively practicing in the state of Texas (n = 642). The questionnaire consisted of 12 items about indications for, technique of, and outcome of urethral dilation, and three demographic questions regarding location and type of practice and number of years since completing residency. Results. A total of 194 physicians completed and returned the questionnaire (30{\%}). Overall, 48.2{\%} of practitioners used dilation six or fewer times during the past year; 23.7{\%} reported having used it more than 30 times. Most urologists used dilation for urethral syndrome only (61.1{\%}), although urethral stricture was also a frequently reported condition requiring dilation (29{\%}). Most urologists trained within the past decade (60.9{\%}) reported never offering dilation for urethral syndrome; only 34.2{\%} of the remainder never offered it (P = 0.002). Urologists normally performed this procedure with local or no anesthesia (85{\%}) and most commonly dilated to 32F (45{\%}). Overall, 21{\%} of urologists trained more than 10 years ago considered dilation very or extremely successful in treating urethral syndrome; 0 of 42 trained more recently considered it to be this successful (P = 0.014). Conclusions. The use of urethral dilation in women remains controversial. Recently trained urologists use it less frequently and find it less efficacious than those who have been practicing for longer periods. Since such obvious biases exist, it is imperative that the clinical merit of urethral dilation be carefully scrutinized.",
author = "Lemack, {Gary E.} and Barbara Foster and Zimmern, {Philippe E.}",
year = "1999",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00141-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "54",
pages = "37--43",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Urethral dilation in women

T2 - A questionnaire-based analysis of practice patterns

AU - Lemack, Gary E.

AU - Foster, Barbara

AU - Zimmern, Philippe E.

PY - 1999/7

Y1 - 1999/7

N2 - Objectives. To assess current practice patterns among urologists and to determine the perceived efficacy of urethral dilation. Urethral dilation has been advocated as a treatment for a variety of urologic disorders in women for several decades. Recent changes in Medicare reimbursement have again focused attention on this issue. Methods. A 15-item questionnaire was mailed to all urologists actively practicing in the state of Texas (n = 642). The questionnaire consisted of 12 items about indications for, technique of, and outcome of urethral dilation, and three demographic questions regarding location and type of practice and number of years since completing residency. Results. A total of 194 physicians completed and returned the questionnaire (30%). Overall, 48.2% of practitioners used dilation six or fewer times during the past year; 23.7% reported having used it more than 30 times. Most urologists used dilation for urethral syndrome only (61.1%), although urethral stricture was also a frequently reported condition requiring dilation (29%). Most urologists trained within the past decade (60.9%) reported never offering dilation for urethral syndrome; only 34.2% of the remainder never offered it (P = 0.002). Urologists normally performed this procedure with local or no anesthesia (85%) and most commonly dilated to 32F (45%). Overall, 21% of urologists trained more than 10 years ago considered dilation very or extremely successful in treating urethral syndrome; 0 of 42 trained more recently considered it to be this successful (P = 0.014). Conclusions. The use of urethral dilation in women remains controversial. Recently trained urologists use it less frequently and find it less efficacious than those who have been practicing for longer periods. Since such obvious biases exist, it is imperative that the clinical merit of urethral dilation be carefully scrutinized.

AB - Objectives. To assess current practice patterns among urologists and to determine the perceived efficacy of urethral dilation. Urethral dilation has been advocated as a treatment for a variety of urologic disorders in women for several decades. Recent changes in Medicare reimbursement have again focused attention on this issue. Methods. A 15-item questionnaire was mailed to all urologists actively practicing in the state of Texas (n = 642). The questionnaire consisted of 12 items about indications for, technique of, and outcome of urethral dilation, and three demographic questions regarding location and type of practice and number of years since completing residency. Results. A total of 194 physicians completed and returned the questionnaire (30%). Overall, 48.2% of practitioners used dilation six or fewer times during the past year; 23.7% reported having used it more than 30 times. Most urologists used dilation for urethral syndrome only (61.1%), although urethral stricture was also a frequently reported condition requiring dilation (29%). Most urologists trained within the past decade (60.9%) reported never offering dilation for urethral syndrome; only 34.2% of the remainder never offered it (P = 0.002). Urologists normally performed this procedure with local or no anesthesia (85%) and most commonly dilated to 32F (45%). Overall, 21% of urologists trained more than 10 years ago considered dilation very or extremely successful in treating urethral syndrome; 0 of 42 trained more recently considered it to be this successful (P = 0.014). Conclusions. The use of urethral dilation in women remains controversial. Recently trained urologists use it less frequently and find it less efficacious than those who have been practicing for longer periods. Since such obvious biases exist, it is imperative that the clinical merit of urethral dilation be carefully scrutinized.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033169110&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033169110&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00141-7

DO - 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00141-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 10414724

AN - SCOPUS:0033169110

VL - 54

SP - 37

EP - 43

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

IS - 1

ER -