Butaney Mohit, Thirumavalavan Nannan, Hockenberry Mark S, Kirby E Will, Pastuszak Alexander W, Lipshultz Larry I
Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Int J Impot Res. 2018 Oct;30(5):237-242. doi: 10.1038/s41443-018-0061-3. Epub 2018 Aug 14.
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.
阴茎双功能超声检查(PDU)结合勃起的药物刺激,是评估多种阴茎疾病的金标准。一项包含30个问题的电子调查问卷被分发给了国际性医学学会(ISSM)的成员。该调查评估了当前PDU实践模式、技术和解读方面的变异性。卡方检验用于确定分类变量之间的关联。在ISSM的1996名现任成员中,约9.5%完成了该调查。近80%接受调查的成员报告使用了PDU,北美从业者使用PDU的比例高于欧洲同行(94%对69%,p<0.01)。约62%的PDU研究由泌尿科医生进行,超过76%由泌尿科医生解读。尽管近90%的从业者报告使用自己的方案,但受访者之间在技术上存在极大差异。超过十种不同的药物混合物被用于诱发勃起,17%的受访者因勃起不足未重复给药。与非泌尿科医生相比,亲自进行PDU的泌尿科医生更有可能使用推荐技术,将探头置于阴茎近端轴处(73%对40%)并以60度或更小角度(68%对36%)评估海绵体动脉血流(p<0.01)。PDU诊断阈值存在明显差异。只有38%的受访者将收缩期峰值速度<25cm/s定义为动脉供血不足,而53%的受访者将舒张末期速度>5cm/s定义为静脉闭塞性疾病。这是第一项评估PDU方案和实践模式变异性并指出改进领域的研究。与其他调查一样,回忆偏倚、普遍性和回应率(9.5%)是本研究固有的局限性。尽管大多数受访者报告使用标准化的PDU方案,但从业者在技术和解读方面都存在广泛差异,限制了阴茎疾病的准确诊断和适当治疗。