What's Gender Got to Do With It: Difference in the Proportion of Traditionally Female Cases Performed by General Urologists of Each Gender.

OBJECTIVE

To examine surgical case volume characteristics in certifying urologists to evaluate practice patterns, given the long-standing understanding but unproven hypothesis that non-fellowship trained female general urologists perform more urogynecologic procedures compared with their equally trained male counterparts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Case log data from certifying and recertifying urologists from 2000 to 2015 were obtained from the American Board of Urology. Thirty-seven Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were chosen to represent traditionally urogynecologic cases. Logistic regression analysis models were used to determine the percentage of total CPT codes logged during the certification period made up by traditionally urogynecologic cases. Male and female non-fellowship trained, self-described general urologists were compared.

RESULTS

The case logs of 4032 non-fellowship trained general urologists were reviewed from 2000 to 2015, 297 of whom were female and 3735 of whom were male. Urogynecologic cases made up 1.27% of the total CPT codes logged by the women and 0.59% of those codes logged by the men (P <.001), an increase of 2.2 times (P <.001). This statistically significant difference persisted regardless of certification period, geographic location, population density, or full-time vs part-time employment.

CONCLUSION

Traditional urogynecologic cases represented a significantly greater percentage of the total cases logged by non-fellowship trained female general urologists compared with their non-fellowship trained, generalist male colleagues. The percentage of total cases performed by both is very small. However, it supports a belief that patient populations differ for male and female general urologists, which may impact training or career choices.