ABSTRACT
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)
Subject(s)
Humans , Female , Physicians, Women/trends , Urology/trends , Surveys and Questionnaires , SpainABSTRACT
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 (pâ¯<â¯0.001) with a higher proportion of men in all categories except for the group of young female and male attendings (29-39 years, pâ¯=â¯0.789), and the group of female residents against male residents (pâ¯=â¯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 (pâ¯=â¯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.
Subject(s)
Urology , Humans , Male , Female , Spain , Urologists , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to perform a systematic review about the relationship between inguinal hernia and surgery for prostate cancer. BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of abdominal wall defects and prostate cancer may be either synchronous or metachronous. The convenience and safety of combined prostatectomy and hernioplasty, the incidence of hernias after prostatectomy and the feasibility of prostatectomy in patients with previous laparoscopic hernioplasty are still debated. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were queried by dedicated search strings. Two researchers independently reviewed the pooled references and selected the articles of interest, including reviews. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies were evaluated, 22 of them analysed the feasibility and the outcomes of a combined surgery, namely one-stage radical prostatectomy and herniorrhaphy or hernioplasty. Literature evidences support the combined intervention to patients suffering from an inguinal hernia and a prostate cancer amenable of radical prostatectomy. Sixteen studies addressing the potential increase in the occurrence of inguinal hernia after radical prostatectomy were evaluated. Approximately 15% of patients who undergo retro-pubic radical prostatectomy will develop inguinal hernia. It is suggested that the incidence might be lower in laparoscopic prostatectomy series, particularly in case of transperitoneal approach. The median time to the appearance of the hernia is around 6 months. After evaluation of 14 studies, it is concluded that laparoscopic hernioplasty does not preclude prostatectomy but hinders further pelvic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: One-stage combined hernioplasty and radical prostatectomy may be accepted except in cases of lymph-nodes dissection and/or positive hydro-distress test of the urethro-vesical anastomosis. Accurate patient's counselling and dedicated consent form are mandatory, in the setting of an experienced multidisciplinary team.
Subject(s)
Hernia, Inguinal/complications , Hernia, Inguinal/surgery , Herniorrhaphy , Laparoscopy , Prostatectomy , Prostatic Neoplasms/complications , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Hernia, Inguinal/epidemiology , Herniorrhaphy/methods , Humans , Incidence , Male , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Prostatectomy/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To analyze the likelihood of undetectable PSA (< 0.01 ng/mL) after extended (ePLND) versus standard pelvic lymph-nodes dissection (sPLND) in pN+ patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional prospectively maintained Prostate Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent radical prostatectomy with PLND and were found with 3or less lymph-nodal metastases between 2007 and 2017. The extension of the PLND was defined according to the number of lymph-nodes (LN) removed. Patients in the 75th or higher percentile of lymph-nodes removed were considered as the ePLND group; patients in the 25th or lower percentile in the sPLND group. Groups were compared in clinical and pathological variables. Student T-test was used for comparing continuous variables; chi-square test was used for categorical variables. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the probability of undetectable PSA at 3rd month postoperatively. Kaplan-Meier method estimated the probability of biochemical recurrence. Differences between the groups were compared by Log-rank test. RESULTS: 1478 patients were treated within the time span considered. 95 with 1 to 3 lymph-nodal metastases were extracted. After accounting for inclusion criteria, 23 patients with a median of 11 LN removed were included in the sPLND group (25th percentile); 23 patients with > 27 LN were included in ePLND group (75th percentile). Surgical time was longer for ePLND. Sixteen patients (69.6%) who underwent ePLND had undetectable PSA postoperatively. At multivariable analysis, the probability of undetectable PSA at 3rd month was higher in patients who received an ePLND (HR=5.18; IC 95%=1.16-23.11; P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: ePLND is more likely to predict undetectable PSA at third month after radical prostatectomy, irrespective of disease characteristics.
