[Trends in the use of midurethral slings after the new legislation: A nationwide survey]. / Évolution des pratiques après l'arrêté encadrant les bandelettes sous-urétrales : résultats d'une enquête nationale.

INTRODUCTION: The French Department of Health published on October 23, 2020 a decree governing acts associated with mid-urethral sling (MUS) operations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in practice following this new legislation. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out among French urologists and gynecologists using an online survey to collect changes in practices since the publication of the decree. RESULTS: From January to February 2021, 436 surgeons participated in the survey. Among these surgeons, 87% were aware of the new legislation and 56% of them considered the decree as useless. The order resulted in an increase in working time in 81% of cases. Among these surgeons, 66% of the surgeons worked in tertiary referral centers for the management of incontinence, of which 55% had a multidisciplinary meeting in urogynecology. Among the surgeons, 31% considered this meeting to be useful but 80% considered that it did not lead to any change in surgical indications, even though 33% of complications of BSU were discussed there. In conclusion, 61% of surgeons felt more reluctant to schedule a BSU placement with this new legislation. CONCLUSION: The majority of questioned surgeons considered the decree as useless. It generated few changes in practices which already respected the law on information, consultation, consent, experience and training. Most urologists and gynecologists are more reluctant to offer MUS after this new legislation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Face masks: benefits and risks during the COVID-19 crisis.

BACKGROUND: The German government has made it mandatory to wear respiratory masks covering mouth and nose (MNC) as an effective strategy to fight SARS-CoV-2 infections. In many countries, this directive has been extended on shopping malls or public transportation. The aim of this paper is to critically analyze the statutory regulation to wear protective masks during the COVID-19 crisis from a medical standpoint. METHODS: We performed an extensive query of the most recent publications addressing the prevention of viral infections including the use of face masks in the community as a method to prevent the spread of the infection. We addressed the issues of practicability, professional use, and acceptability based on the community and the environment where the user resided. RESULTS: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. However, the use of MNC seems to be linked to relevant protection during close contact scenarios by limiting pathogen-containing aerosol and liquid droplet dissemination. Importantly, we found evidence for significant respiratory compromise in patients with severe obstructive pulmonary disease, secondary to the development of hypercapnia. This could also happen in patients with lung infections, with or without SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: Epidemiologists currently emphasize that wearing MNC will effectively interrupt airborne infections in the community. The government and the politicians have followed these recommendations and used them to both advise and, in some cases, mandate the general population to wear MNC in public locations. Overall, the results seem to suggest that there are some clinically relevant scenarios where the use of MNC necessitates more defined recommendations. Our critical evaluation of the literature both highlights the protective effects of certain types of face masks in defined risk groups, and emphasizes their potential risks.