The burdens of incontinence: Quantifying incontinence product usage and costs in women.

INTRODUCTION: Urinary incontinence is a common condition in women, who often use incontinence containment products to self-manage. Few studies have sought to quantify use and costs of incontinence products associated with subtypes of incontinence and severity, therefore this study aimed to quantify incontinence product use and personal costs to women. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis from a sample of adult women recruited electronically via ResearchMatch for a study on urinary symptoms and social determinants of health. Participants completed validated questionnaires on urinary symptoms, and were asked about daily numbers and types of incontinence products used and weekly costs, along with demographic and baseline clinical information, and information about unmet social needs. Descriptive statistics were performed, in addition to Wilcoxon rank sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests to compare incontinence product usage and cost based on type of incontinence, symptom severity, and other demographics, in addition to multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 702 women who reported using weekly incontinence products were included in the final analytic sample. Overall, women reported using a mean of 1.8 ± 2.1 incontinence products in 24 h (median: 1, interquartile range [IQR]: 1), with a maximum of 32. Mean weekly cost of was $5.42 ± $8.59 (median: $3, IQR: $4), with cost up to $100. Nonwhite women trended towards having higher product usage and cost, with significant cost increase seen among non-Hispanic Black women and Hispanic women. Usage and cost were higher in women who had less education, had household income below the poverty line, were on disability, were using Medicaid or were uninsured, had more unmet social needs, and in those with mixed incontinence. Additionally, daily product use and weekly costs increased with incontinence symptom severity, with the biggest increase between those with severe and very severe symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we were able to quantify the number of incontinence products used daily and the weekly costs in incontinent women across types and severity of incontinence. Costs were even greater and may be prohibitive, in women with more unmet social needs, Medicaid or no insurance, less than a college education, lower income, or on disability.

Association of Knowledge and Presence of Pelvic Floor Disorders and Participation in Pelvic Floor Exercises: A Cross-sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Women's baseline knowledge of pelvic floor exercises (PFEs) and pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) is not well established, as is their knowledge regarding PFE and participation in such exercise. The aim of our study was to assess baseline PFD and PFE knowledge and to determine if knowledge in any way influenced participation in PFEs. METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved, cross-sectional survey administered to women 18 years or older. We included all women who completed the survey, of which 3733 met the criteria. A survey-based questionnaire was used to query lower urinary tract symptoms, PFD, knowledge, and frequency of participation in PFEs. RESULTS: Of those who responded, the mean incontinence knowledge score was 9.2 ± 2.6, whereas the mean score for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) knowledge was 6.8 ± 3.6. Of the respondents, 92.5% reported being familiar with Kegel exercises. The majority of respondents reported that they did not participate in PFEs (57.4%). Those with POP were more likely to do daily PFEs than those without POP, 34.8% versus 16.4% (P < 0.001). Stress urinary incontinence did not influence frequency of performing PFEs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that while baseline knowledge of POP and incontinence knowledge were high in this patient population, the majority of participants did not participate in PFE. Participants with POP were more likely to partake in daily PFE. A gap exists between knowledge and willingness to participate in PFE. Bridging this gap may be significantly impactful for women's health.

Evaluation of Racial Microaggressions Experienced During Medical School Training and the Effect on Medical Student Education and Burnout: A Validation Study.

INTRODUCTION: Microaggressions in the learning environment have been documented at various levels of medical training. However, there is lack of data detailing the prevalence and effects of racial microaggressions in medical school. This limits interventions that might improve the learning environment for underrepresented minority medical students (URMMS). This study describes the creation and validation of a survey instrument characterizing the experience of microaggressions in medical school and their impact on medical student education and burnout. METHODS: An anonymous survey instrument was adapted for medical students from the validated Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS) and distributed to the national listservs of the Student National Medical Association (SNMA), Latino Medical Student Association (LMSA), and the Asian Pacific American Medical Student Association. Responses were categorized into two cohorts: under-represented minority (URM) and non-URM based on self-reported race or ethnicity. RESULTS: A total of 217 responses were collected from medical students across the United States, with 148 (68.2%) students identifying as URM. URM respondents were significantly (p < 0.05) more likely to report experiencing race-related microaggressions during medical school (55% vs 31%), and to report that these microaggressions contributed to feelings of burnout (62% vs 29%) and compromised learning (64% vs 49%). URM students were significantly less likely to feel that adequate resources were available to address microaggressions (26% vs 39%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that microaggressions experienced by URMMS can be evaluated using an adapted REMS. Additionally, the experience of microaggressions negatively impact the learning environment, and students feel the availability of sufficient resources to address microaggressions and their effects are lacking. Further research is needed to evaluate microaggressions and their impact on a larger scale. This should be followed by interventions to minimize the frequency and impact of these microaggressions.

Are postoperative antibiotics necessary after artificial urinary sphincter insertion?

INTRODUCTION We sought to explore whether patients discharged without antibiotics after artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion were more likely to require device explantation for infection or erosion compared to patients discharged with antibiotics at our institution and compared to patients in other large, contemporary series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AUS insertions performed at our institution between 2013 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed to determine demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative and medium-term outcomes. Patients were grouped based on 1) known risk factors for infectious complications or erosion and 2) postoperative antibiotic prescription status. Patients were placed in Group 1 if they did not demonstrate risk factors and did not receive postoperative antibiotics, Group 2 if they did possess risk factors but did not receive postoperative antibiotics, and Group 3 if they had risk factors and received postoperative antibiotics. RESULTS: Of the 155 men who met inclusion criteria, 44, 47, and 64 were categorized in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Median (IQR) follow up was similar across Groups 1, 2, and 3 (12.7 [4.6-25.1] versus 10.7 [4.5-31.3] versus 8.3 [4.4-26.4] months, p = 0.808). Rates of explantation due to device infection (0 versus 2 versus 6%, p = 0.172) or cuff erosion (2 versus 2 versus 8%, p = 0.253) did not vary significantly between Groups 1-3. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing AUS insertion may be unlikely to benefit from the routine administration of postoperative antibiotics. In light of the known consequences of antibiotic overuse, a randomized controlled trial is warranted.

USMLE Step 1 Scoring Changes and the Urology Residency Application Process: Program Directors' Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To capture the perspectives of urology program directors (PDs) regarding the change in United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scoring to pass/fail (binary) and the impact of this change on the urology residency application process. METHODS: A validated survey was developed and distributed via email to urology PDs at all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited programs. RESULTS: A total of 65 PDs completed the survey, for a response rate of 49.0%. Most PDs (58.7%) did not agree that binary USMLE Step 1 scoring is a good idea. The majority (84.6%) felt that this change would make it more difficult to compare applicants objectively and that the change would increase emphasis on Step 2 clinical knowledge (CK) scores. Likewise, 73.8% of PDs reported that they would start requiring applicants to submit Step 2 CK scores and 78.5% of PDs felt that Step 2 CK should remain numerically scored. Free text responses highlighted concerns for students at medical schools with pass/fail grading and the potential impact this change could have on the early match. CONCLUSION: Urology PDs have generally negative perspectives towards binary scoring of USMLE Step 1. They believe the change will make residency selection more arduous and less objective, without increasing medical student well-being. PDs anticipate a heavier emphasis on USMLE Step 2 CK scores and this may alter the urology early match process. Modifications to application requirements and interview schedules may be necessary to uphold an unbiased selection of applicants with respect to the early match timeline.

Minimal Inpatient Narcotic Requirement and Immediate Complication Profile Supports Same Day Discharge Following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Insertion.

INTRODUCTION: With more than 3,500 artificial urinary sphincters placed annually in the United States a significant cost burden is associated with overnight observation following surgery. We sought to determine whether inpatient management after artificial urinary sphincter insertion, our current local standard of care, is necessary with regards to inpatient narcotic requirements and immediate postoperative complications. METHODS: This was an institutional review board approved, retrospective review of artificial urinary sphincter insertions identified by CPT code 53445 between June 2013 and September 2017. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, postoperative narcotic use and immediate postoperative complications. RESULTS: We identified 163 men who underwent artificial urinary sphincter insertion for analysis. The cohort had a mean age of 69.8 ± 8.5 years, body mass index of 28.9 ± 5.1 kg/m2 and preoperative pad per day use of 5.8 ± 3.5. Of all patients identified 25 (15%) were using chronic narcotic pain medication preoperatively and 51 (31%) had a diagnosis of diabetes (mean A1c 7.0 ± 1.5%). All but 1 (99%) patients were discharged on the first postoperative day and 1 left on the second postoperative day. Two (1.2%) patients experienced immediate postoperative complication, and 8 (6%) patients failed a voiding trial on postoperative day 1. The 154 (94%) patients who required orally administrated narcotic pain medication after leaving the postanesthesia care unit used a median of 31.0 ± 22.9 morphine milligram equivalents. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate postoperative and peridischarge complication rates are around 1% after artificial urinary sphincter insertion, and narcotic requirements following postanesthesia care unit stay are minimal. Outpatient artificial urinary sphincter insertion is likely to be safe, effective and beneficial with regards to patient experience and total costs.

Penile Prosthesis Insertion in the Era of Antibiotic Stewardship-Are Postoperative Antibiotics Necessary?

PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether patients discharged from the hospital without antibiotics after inflatable penile prosthesis insertion were at increased risk for infectious complications compared to patients at our institution discharged with oral antibiotics and patients in other contemporary series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent inflatable penile prosthesis insertion from 2013 through 2017. Group 1 patients had no risk factors for infectious complications and did not receive postoperative antibiotics. Group 2 patients had risk factors for infectious complications but did not receive postoperative antibiotics. Group 3 patients had risk factors for infectious complications and received postoperative antibiotics. RESULTS: Of the 222 men who met study inclusion criteria 88 (40%) were in group 1, 48 (21%) were in group 2 and 86 (39%) were in group 3. The mean ± SD number of risk factors for infection was lower in group 2 than in group 3 (1.08 ± 0.28 vs 1.24 ± 0.46, p = 0.013). Median followup did not vary among groups 1, 2 and 3 (4.6 months, IQR 1.8-7.2; 3.5, IQR 1.4-6.9; and 4.5, IQR 1.4-7.4; p = 0.146, respectively). Rates of explantation due to device infection (0% vs 4% vs 5%, p = 0.130) and nonoperative infectious complications (1% vs 2% vs 2%, p = 0.829) did not vary among groups 1 to 3, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo inflatable penile prosthesis insertion appeared unlikely to benefit from routine administration of postoperative antibiotics. In the current era of antibiotic stewardship these findings have the potential for substantial individual and population health benefits.