ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection remains one of the most commonly sexually transmitted infections in both females and males. HPV viruses are associated with several manifestations including genital warts, but more importantly for urology practitioners, cervical and penile carcinomas and recurrent genital condylomata in both sexes. The incidence of HPV-related carcinomas has increased in cervical, oropharyngeal, vulvar, penile, and anal cancers. Effective vaccines have been available for almost a decade, but widespread adoption of vaccine administration has been problematic for multiple reasons. Many countries (over 100) have adopted vaccine programs for females and an increasing number of countries are extending the indications to include males between the ages of 9-26. There still seems to be controversy surrounding these universal vaccination programs as well as some ethical and practical concerns regarding the administration of a vaccine for diseases that are associated with sexual contact in both sexes, especially during the early adolescent years. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to provide a review of the available literature so pediatric and adult urologists may be more aware of the issues related to HPV vaccination in order to more effectively counsel patients and parents regarding the risks, benefits, and public health issues regarding HPV vaccination. This topic is especially relevant to pediatric urologists who see patients in the target age group for the HPV vaccine. There has been an explosion of literature regarding HPV vaccination programs and the relative difficulty in adopting the vaccine series with a completion rate of under 50% of patients in the recommended age ranges for vaccination. METHODS: Articles were obtained from an extensive Medline literature search (1998-present) to evaluate the current HPV vaccination regimens for teenagers with special emphasis on the urologically focused disease burden. RESULTS: The adoption of universal HPV vaccination has been difficult, but appears to be increasing over time as public education improves and governmentally- mandated vaccine programs increase. Despite the ethical concerns raised, the benefits of vaccination with regard to cancer prevention outweigh the risks and potential side effects related to the quadrivalent vaccine administration. Clearly, more follow-up over time is required to document these improvements in public health. Urologists need to remain aware of the prevention strategies for HPV infection and should help with counseling parents and patients in the appropriate age groups for HPV vaccination. Urology providers need to help engage and educate the parents and teenage patients to help promote broader adoption of the HPV vaccine regimen.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: In the mid 1800s Dr. J. Marion Sims reported the successful repair of vesicovaginal fistulas with a technique he developed by performing multiple operations on female slaves. A venerated physician in his time, the legacy of Dr. Sims is controversial and represents a significant chapter in the mistreatment of African-Americans by the medical establishment. This review compares the modern debate surrounding his legacy with the presentation of his operation in widely consulted urological texts and journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review was performed of medical, sociological and periodical sources (1851 to the present) regarding J. Marion Sims and vesicovaginal fistula repair. RESULTS: During the last several decades, while the controversy around Dr. Sims' surgical development has produced a steady stream of articles in the historical and popular literature, relatively little mention is found in standard urology textbooks or journals. With increased public attention, some have debated the removal or modification of public tributes to Dr. Sims. This move has been countered by arguments against the validity of judging a 19th century physician by modern standards. CONCLUSIONS: While historians, ethicists and the popular press have debated Dr. Sims' legacy, medical sources have continued to portray him unquestionably as a great figure in medical history. This division keeps the medical profession uninformed and detached from the public debate on his legacy and, thus, the larger issues of ethical treatment of surgical patients.
