Dataset Information

Current practice in the management of ischemic priapism: an anonymous survey of ISSM members.

ABSTRACT: Penile shunting is the standard of care in management of ischemic priapism refractory (IPR) to non-surgical interventions. Due to high rates of impotence, corporal fibrosis, and loss of penile length, recent literature suggests these patients benefit from immediate penile prosthesis (PP) placement. An IRB-exempt anonymous electronic survey of the 2168 members of the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM) was conducted. The survey included demographic information, confidence, and experience-related management of IPR. The aim was to evaluate current practice patterns in management of IPR and to investigate the role of immediate PP implantation in the management of prolonged (>36?h) IPR. The survey response rate was 11.6% (n?=?251). Most respondents were urologists (173), from the USA (49.1%), and had completed a fellowship in male sexual medicine, men's health, reconstruction, or andrology (71.1%). The majority (91.3%) see at least one case of prolonged priapism (>36?h) that requires surgical management yearly. When looking at volume in training and after, our respondents had a significantly higher experience with penile prostheses (over 70%,?>?=?10) as compared with shunts (less than 40%,?>?=?10). Overall, 70.9% of respondents felt more comfortable with a malleable PP than a shunt. However, penile shunts are still preferred as the first line of surgical management by ~80% of respondents as compared with 12.7% who instead prefer a PP. We also found that under 40% of respondents currently use penile MRI or corporal biopsies in their management of prolonged assessment. This is the first study to assess current clinical practices in management of IPR globally. As in any anonymous self-reported survey-based research, recall and sampling bias are an inherent limitation. Penile shunting for IPR continues to be the preferred treatment despite emerging data. Respondents performed PP surgery routinely and feel more confident placing PP than performing penile shunting procedures.

SUBMITTER: Butaney M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6679808 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Current practice in the management of ischemic priapism: an anonymous survey of ISSM members.

Butaney Mohit M Thirumavalavan Nannan N Rodriguez Dayron D Gross Martin S MS Munarriz Ricardo R

International journal of impotence research 20190204 6

Penile shunting is the standard of care in management of ischemic priapism refractory (IPR) to non-surgical interventions. Due to high rates of impotence, corporal fibrosis, and loss of penile length, recent literature suggests these patients benefit from immediate penile prosthesis (PP) placement. An IRB-exempt anonymous electronic survey of the 2168 members of the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM) was conducted. The survey included demographic information, confidence, and experi ...[more]

PMID: 30718828

Similar Datasets

Project description:Penile duplex ultrasound (PDU), combined with pharmacologic stimulation of erection, is the gold standard for the evaluation of multiple penile conditions. A 30-question electronic survey was distributed to members of the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM). The survey assessed the variability in current PDU practice patterns, technique, and interpretation. Chi-square test was used to determine the association between categorical variables. Approximately 9.5% of all 1996 current ISSM members completed the survey. Almost 80% of members surveyed reported using PDU, with more North American practitioners utilizing PDU than their European counterparts (94% vs 69%, p < 0.01). Approximately 62% of PDU studies were performed by a urologist and more than 76% were interpreted by a urologist. Although almost 90% of practitioners reported using their own protocol, extreme variation in the technique existed among respondents. Over ten different pharmacologic mixtures were used to generate erections, and 17% of respondents did not repeat dosing for insufficient erection. Urologists personally performing PDU were more likely to assess the cavernosal artery flow using recommended techniques with the probe at the proximal penile shaft (73% vs 40%) and at a 60-degree angle or less (68% vs 36%) compared with non-urologists (p < 0.01). Large differences in PDU diagnostic thresholds were apparent. Only 38% of respondents defined arterial insufficiency with a peak systolic velocity < 25 cm/s, while 53% of respondents defined venous occlusive disease with an end diastolic velocity > 5 cm/s. This is the first study to assess the variability in the PDU protocol and practice patterns, and to pinpoint areas of improvement. As in other surveys, recall bias, generalizability, and response rate (9.5%) are inherent limitations to this study. Although most respondents report utilizing a standardized PDU protocol, widespread variation exists among practitioners in terms of both technique and interpretation, limiting accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment of penile conditions.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a worldwide consensus among experts that guidelines and algorithms on airway management contribute to improved patient safety in anesthesia. The present study aimed to determine the current practice of airway management of German anesthesiologists and assess the safety gap, defined as the difference between observed and recommended practice, amongst these practitioners.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of implementing the guidelines on airway management practice in Germany amongst anesthesiologists and identify potential safety gaps.MethodsA survey was conducted in September 2019 by contacting all registered members of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) via email. The participants were asked about their personal and institutional background, adherence to recommendations of the current German S1 guidelines and availability of airway devices.ResultsA total of 1862 DGAI members completed the questionnaire (response rate 17%). The main outcome was that anesthesiologists mostly adhered to the guidelines, yet certain recommendations, particularly pertaining to specifics of preoxygenation and training, showed a safety gap. More than 90% of participants had a video laryngoscope and half had performed more than 25 awake intubations using a flexible endoscope; however, only 81% had a video laryngoscope with a hyperangulated blade. An estimated 16% of all intubations were performed with a video laryngoscope, and 1 in 4 participants had performed awake intubation with it. Nearly all participants had cared for patients with suspected difficult airways. Half of the participants had already faced a "cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate" (CICO) situation and one in five had to perform an emergency front of neck access (eFONA) at least once. In this case, almost two thirds used puncture-based techniques and one third scalpel-based techniques.ConclusionCurrent practice of airway management showed overall adherence to the current German guidelines on airway management, yet certain areas need to be improved.

Project description:PurposeCancer pain can seriously impact the quality of life (QoL) of patients, and optimal management practices are therefore of paramount importance. The ACHEON survey queried physicians and patients from 10 Asian countries/regions to assess current clinical practices in cancer pain management in Asia. This study presents the data obtained for cancer pain management in mainland China, with an emphasis on practices related to opioid drugs.Materials and methodsIn several tertiary hospitals across China, 250 patients experiencing cancer pain and 100 physicians were surveyed on questions designed to assess current cancer pain management practices and cancer pain impact on QoL.ResultsThe patient survey showed that 88% of patients reported moderate-to-severe cancer pain, with a median duration of 6 months. The physician survey showed that medical school/residency training with regard to cancer pain management was inadequate in ~80% of physicians. A total of 80% of physicians and 67.2% of patients reported that pain scale was used during pain assessment; 84% of physicians expressed that physician-perceived pain severity was not completely consistent with actual pain the patient experienced. Of the 147 patients who recalled the medication received, 83.7% were administered opioid prescriptions. Of the 240 patients who received treatment, 43.8% perceived the inadequacy of controlling pain. The primary barriers from physicians perceived to optimal pain management included patients' fear of side effects (58%), patients' fear of addiction (53%), patients' reluctance to report pain (43%), physicians' reluctance to prescribe (29%), physicians' inadequacy of pain assessment (27%) and excessive regulation of opioid analgesics (47%).ConclusionKnowledge of cancer pain management should be strengthened among physicians. Quantitative pain assessment and principle-based pain management should be combined to achieve pain relief. Misconceptions about opioids in patients and physicians and poor report about pain should be overcome through training/education to improve QoL of patients impacted by pain.

Dataset Information

Current practice in the management of ischemic priapism: an anonymous survey of ISSM members.

Publications

Current practice in the management of ischemic priapism: an anonymous survey of ISSM members.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets