Mujer y urología: ¿cuál es la situación en España? / Women in urology: What is their current situation in Spain?

Objetivo Analizar la situación actual de las mujeres en la especialidad de Urología en España. Material y métodos Estudio descriptivo a partir de los resultados de una encuesta electrónica remitida entre febrero y abril de 2020 a través de la base de datos del grupo de Residentes y Jóvenes Urólogos (RAEU) de la Asociación Española de Urología (AEU). Se analizaron las características demográficas de la encuesta y los resultados de la misma. Resultados Se obtuvieron 257 respuestas, correspondientes a 210 mujeres (81,71%) y 47 hombres (18,29%) procedentes de 111 hospitales en total. Se obtuvieron diferencias estadísticamente significativas (p<0,001), con una mayor proporción de hombres en todas las categorías, excepto en el grupo de adjuntas y adjuntos jóvenes (29-39años; p=0,789) y en el de residentes mujeres frente a residentes hombres (p=0,814). En los hospitales con unidades subespecializadas se encontró un mayor número de hombres en todas, excepto en la unidad de suelo pélvico, en la que no se observó una diferencia estadísticamente significativa (p=0,06). Respecto a cargos de responsabilidad, en solo 7 de 111 hospitales había jefas de servicio. Conclusiones La presencia de las mujeres en la especialidad de Urología es cada vez mayor, debido mayoritariamente a las generaciones más jóvenes. Sin embargo, el acceso de estas mujeres a puestos de relevancia es anecdótica (AU)

Objective To analyze the current state of women in urology in Spain. Material and methods Descriptive study based on the results of an online survey sent between February and April 2020 through the database of the Residents and Young Urologists group (RAEU) of the Spanish Association of Urology (AEU). Demographic characteristics of the survey and its results were analyzed. Results In total, 257 responses were obtained from 210 women (81.71%) and 47 men (18.29%) belonging to 111 hospitals. Statistically significant differences were observed (P<.001) with a higher proportion of men in all categories except for the group of young female and male attendings (29-39 years, P=.789), and the group of female residents against male residents (P=.814). The number of men was higher in hospitals with subspecialty units except for the Pelvic Floor Unit, where no statistically significant difference was observed (P=.06). Regarding positions of responsibility, only 7 out of 111 hospitals had female department chiefs. Conclusions Women's representation in urology is increasing, mainly due to the younger generations. However, the access of these women to relevant positions is anecdotal (AU)

Women in urology: what is their current situation in Spain?

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the current state of women in urology in Spain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Descriptive study based on the results of an online survey sent between February and April 2020 through the database of the Residents and Young Urologists group (RAEU) of the Spanish Association of Urology (AEU). Characteristics of the survey and its results were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 257 responses were obtained from 210 women (81.71%) and 47 men (18.29%) belonging to 111 hospitals. Statistically significant differences were observed (p < 0.001) with a higher proportion of men in all categories except for the group of young female and male attendings (29-39 years, p = 0.789), and the group of female residents against male residents (p = 0.814). The number of men was higher in hospitals with subspecialty units except for the Pelvic Floor Unit, where no statistically significant difference was observed (p = 0.06). Regarding positions of responsibility, only 7 out of 111 hospitals had female Department Chiefs. CONCLUSIONS: Women's representation in urology is increasing, mainly due to the younger generations. However, the access of these women to relevant positions is anecdotal.

Empleo de malla en U de una pieza y sutura barbada durante la colposacropexia laparoscópica / The use of one-piece U-shaped mesh and barbed sutures in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

INTRODUCCIÓN: La colposacropexia laparoscópica (CL) para el manejo del prolapso de órganos pélvicos, es una cirugía compleja que requiere experticia. La complejidad radica en los requerimientos de sutura intracorpórea y en las dificultades para la manipulación intracorpórea de la malla. La sutura barbada (SB) simplifica la sutura intracorpórea y no requiere anudado. Adicionalmente las mallas en U de una sola pieza (MU-P) pueden facilitar su manipulación, estabilización y el ajuste de tensión. Describimos nuestra técnica quirúrgica de CL empleando ambos materiales y valoramos su factibilidad, seguridad y efectividad en una serie prospectiva de pacientes. Materiales y MÉTODOS: Un total de 7 pacientes con prolapso de órganos pélvicos sintomático fueron intervenidas mediante CL empleando MU-P fijada con SB. A todas ellas se les realizó historia uroginecológica, clasificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos según Baden-Walker y se les administró el cuestionario de calidad de vida específico de prolapso. Se empleó la MU-P de polipropileno, macroporo, no absorbible (Uplift (R)). La rama posterior de la malla se fijó en los músculos elevadores con sendos puntos de sutura no absorbible. Dos hilos de SB (V-Loc (R)), atadas en su extremo se emplearon para fijar la rama anterior de la malla en la vagina con dos líneas de sutura continua en sentidos opuestos con inicio en el punto central y más profundo de la disección vaginal. Se emplearon tackers no metálicos del kit de Uplift(R) para la promontofijación y SB para el cierre del peritoneo. RESULTADOS: La mediana de edad fue 60 años, la mediana de tiempo de fijación de la rama anterior de la malla con SB fue de 23 minutos (rango 21,30 - 26,40 min), la mediana de la estancia hospitalaria fue de 3 días y el sangrado intraoperatoria fue mínimo. Observamos que la MU-P se autoestabiliza al desplegarse longitudinalmente en la cavidad minimizando los requerimientos del asistente quirúrgico. La promontofijación independiente de cada rama de la malla (posterior y anterior) permite un ajuste de tensión más anatómico. La fijación de la malla a la vagina mediante nuestra técnica empleando la SB resulta rápida y sencilla. No se registraron complicaciones intraoperatorias y no se han evidenciado erosiones vaginales ni recurrencias durante el seguimiento (mediana 14 meses. ) Todas las pacientes presentaron mejoría clínica del prolapso y están satisfechas con la cirugía. CONCLUSIONES: La CL empleando MU-P y SB es factible, segura, efectiva y podría simplificar la cirugía

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS) is considered a safe and effective surgery for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), but it requires expertise in laparoscopic surgery. The complexity of the intervention is due to the requirements of intracorporeal sutures and the manipulation of the mesh inside the cavity, which may be cumbersome. The barbed sutures (BS) simplify intracorporeal suturing and do not require knotting. Additionally, one-piece U-mesh (OP-UM) may facilitate handling, stabilization and tension adjustment. We describe our LS surgical technique using both materials to assess its feasibility, safety and effectiveness in a prospective series of PATIENTS: MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 7 patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse were included. Urogynecological history, classification of the pelvic organ prolapse according to Baden-Walker and the application of the Prolapse Quality of Life questionnaire were performed in all cases. The non-absorbable polypropylene OP-UM (UpliftTM) was used. The posterior side of the single sling is sutured to the elevator anus muscles with two non-absorbable stitches. Two strands of BS (V-LocTM), tied at their ends, were used to attach the mesh to the vagina in two lines of continuous sutures in opposite directions. Self-anchoring tackers were used for promontofixation and BS for peritoneal closure. RESULTS: The median age was 60 years, the median time of the anterior branch mesh BS fixation was 23 minutes (range 21,30 - 26,40 min), intraoperative bleeding was minimal, and the median hospital stay was 3 days. No intraoperative complications were recorded, and no mesh erosions or recurrences were observed at a median follow-up of 14 months (range 3-25 months). All patients presented clinical improvement of the prolapse and were satisfied with surgery. We observed that the OP-UM self-stabilizes when it extends longitudinally into the abdominal cavity, reducing the need of the surgical assistant. The independent promontofixation of each part of the mesh (posterior and anterior) allows a more anatomical tension adjustment. Fixing the mesh to the vagina is fast and simple with our BS technique. CONCLUSIONS: The use of OP-UM and BS during LS is feasible, safe, effective and could simplify this surgical technique

The use of one-piece U-shaped mesh and barbed sutures in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. / Empleo de malla en U de una pieza y sutura barbada durante la colposacropexia laparoscópica.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS) is considered a safe and effective surgery for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), but it requires expertise in laparoscopic surgery. The complexity of the intervention is due to the requirements of intracorporeal sutures and the manipulation of the mesh inside the cavity, which may be cumbersome. The barbed sutures (BS) simplify intracorporeal suturing and do not require knotting. Additionally, one-piece U-mesh (OP-UM) may facilitate handling, stabilization and tension adjustment. We describe our LS surgical technique using both materials to assess its feasibility, safety and effectiveness in a prospective series of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 7 patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse were included. Urogynecological history, classification of the pelvic organ prolapse according to Baden-Walker and the application of the Prolapse Quality of Life questionnaire were performed in all cases. The non-absorbable polypropylene OP-UM (Uplift ™) was used. The posterior side of the single sling is sutured to the elevator anus muscles with two non-absorbable stitches. Two strands of BS (V-Loc™), tied at their ends, were used to attach the mesh to the vagina in two lines of continuous sutures in opposite directions. Self-anchoring tackers were used for promontofixation and BS for peritoneal closure. RESULTS: The median age was 60 years, the median time of the anterior branch mesh BS fixation was 23minutes (range 21,30 - 26,40min), intraoperative bleeding was minimal, and the median hospital stay was 3 days. No intraoperative complications were recorded, and no mesh erosions or recurrences were observed at a median follow-up of 14 months (range 3-25 months). All patients presented clinical improvement of the prolapse and were satisfied with surgery. We observed that the OP-UM self-stabilizes when it extends longitudinally into the abdominal cavity, reducing the need of the surgical assistant. The independent promontofixation of each part of the mesh (posterior and anterior) allows a more anatomical tension adjustment. Fixing the mesh to the vagina is fast and simple with our BS technique. CONCLUSIONS: The use of OP-UM and BS during LS is feasible, safe, effective and could simplify this surgical technique.

[Tolerance of prostate biopsy with use of local anesthesia and benzodiazepines: a randomized, prospective study]. / Tolerancia a la biopsia prostática con el uso de anestesia local y benzodiacepinas: estudio prospectivo aleatorizado.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate biopsy is an uncomfortable procedure, and attempts are therefore being constantly made to try and decrease biopsy-related pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, prospective study including 160 procedures was designed. Inclusion criteria were: first biopsy, PSA < 15 ng/mL, and age under 75 years. Patients were randomized into 4 groups. Group A was the control group, while group B received intracapsular anesthesia (8 mL of 2% lidocaine), group C 5 mg of oral clorazepate dipotassium one hour before biopsy, and group D both local anesthesia and clorazepate. Each patient completed a questionnaire including three 10-point visual analog scales for pain immediately after the procedure and 30 minutes later. RESULTS: Mean pain scores were 5.17 (group A), 1.72 (group B), 2.43 (group C), and 0.88 (group D) in the first questionnaire, and 1.71, 0.25, 0.75 and 0.35 respectively in the second questionnaire. Statistically significant differences were found in the ANOVA test. Group comparisons showed the following: 1. A vs B: statistically significant differences in both questionnaires (p = 0.006 and 0.011). 2. A vs C: a significant difference was found in the first questionnaire (0.051), but not in the second (0.012). 3. A vs D: significant differences in both questionnaires (0.001 and 0.010). No statistically significant differences were seen in both questionnaires (0.825 and 0.685) when benzodiazepines where added to local anesthesia (B vs D). CONCLUSION: Use of benzodiazepines as a single method to decrease biopsy-related pain is not warranted.

Tolerancia a la biopsia prostática con el uso de anestesia local y benzodiacepinas: estudio prospectivo aleatorizado / Tolerance of prostate biopsy with use of local anesthesia and benzodiazepines: a randomized, prospective study

Introducción: la biopsia prostática es un procedimiento molesto, lo que condiciona que constantemente intentemos disminuir el dolor durante su realización. Material y métodos: diseñamos un estudio prospectivo aleatorizado en el que incluimos 160 procedimientos. Criterios de inclusión: primera biopsia, antígeno prostático específico (PSA) < 15 ng/ml, edad menor de 75 años. Los pacientes fueron aleatorizados en 4 grupos. El primero (A) quedó como control, el B recibió anestesia intracapsular (8 ml de lidocaína 2%), el C 5 mg de clorazepato dipotásico vía oral una hora antes y en el D se aplicaron las dos medidas (anestesia local y clorazepato). Se entregó un cuestionario con tres medidas de dolor (valorándolo de 0 a 10) tras el procedimento y otro 30 minutos después. Resultados: las medias del dolor fueron 5,17 (A), 1,72 (B), 2,43 (C) y 0,88 (D) en el primer cuestionario. En el segundo fueron 1,71, 0,25, 0,75 y 0,35, respectivamente. La comparación de medias realizada mediante el test de ANOVA pone de manifiesto diferencias significativas. Al comparar los grupos entre sí encontramos: 1. A frente a B: diferencia significativa en ambos cuestionarios (p 0,006 y 0,011). 2. A frente a C: no significación en el primer cuestionario (0,051) y sí en el segundo (0,012). 3. A frente a D: diferencia en ambos cuestionarios (0,001 y 0,010). El uso de benzodiacepinas añadidas a la anestesia local (B frente a D) no mostró diferencias estadísticas en ambos cuestionarios (0,825 y 0,685). Conclusión: consideramos que el uso de benzodiacepinas no está justificado como método único de control del dolor para la realización de la biopsia prostática(AU)

Introduction: Prostate biopsy is an uncomfortable procedure, and attempts are therefore being constantly made to try and decrease biopsy-related pain. Materials and methods: A randomized, prospective study including 160 procedures was designed. Inclusion criteria were: first biopsy, PSA < 15 ng/mL, and age under 75 years. Patients were randomized into 4 groups. Group A was the control group, while group B received intracapsular anesthesia (8 mL of 2% lidocaine), group C 5 mg of oral clorazepate dipotassium one hour before biopsy, and group D both local anesthesia and clorazepate. Each patient completed a questionnaire including three 10-point visual analog scales for pain immediately after the procedure and 30 minutes later. Results: Mean pain scores were 5.17 (group A), 1.72 (group B), 2.43 (group C), and 0.88 (group D) in the first questionnaire, and 1.71, 0.25, 0.75 and 0.35 respectively in the second questionnaire. Statistically significant di fferences were found in the ANOVA test. Group comparisons showed the following: 1. A vs B: statistically significant di fferences in both questionnaires (p = 0.006 and 0.011). 2. A vs C: a significant di fference was found in the first questionnaire (0.051), but not in the second (0.012). 3. A vs D: significant di fferences in both questionnaires (0.001 and 0.010). No statistically significant differences were seen in both questionnaires (0.825 and 0.685) when benzodiazepines where added to local anesthesia (B vs D). Conclusion: Use of benzodiazepines as a single method to decrease biopsy-related pain is not warranted(AU)