Trends in Urogynecologic and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery Among Early-career Urologists: Analysis of American Board of Urology Case Logs From 2009-2020 - 07/10/25

Doi : 10.1016/j.urology.2025.09.023

Zhenyue Huang ^a,^⁎ , Tal Cohen ^a, Kelly Ieong ^a, Jason Zhang ^b, Michael Ernst ^a, Steven J. Weissbart ^a, Justina Tam ^a, Jason Kim ^a

^a Department of Urology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, NY

^b Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY

^⁎ Address correspondence to: Zhenyue Huang, M.D., Department of Urology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, NY 11794. Department of Urology, Stony Brook University Hospital Stony Brook NY 11794

Sous presse. Épreuves corrigées par l'auteur. Disponible en ligne depuis le Tuesday 07 October 2025
Cet article a été publié dans un numéro de la revue, cliquez ici pour y accéder

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate trends in Urogynecologic and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery (URPS) among early-career urologists, comparing URPS-trained and non-URPS urologists using American Board of Urology case logs from 2009-2020.

Materials and Methods

Six-month American Board of Urology case logs from 3113 early-career urologists were analyzed. Procedures included sling placement and urethral bulking for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), transvaginal prolapse repair and sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse, and intravesical Botox injection and sacral neuromodulation for overactive bladder (OAB).

Results

URPS urologists performed higher mean case volumes for SUI (sling: 11 vs 5, P <.01; bulking: 8 vs 4, P <.01), prolapse (transvaginal: 8 vs 4, P <.001; sacrocolpopexy: 6 vs 3, P <.001), and OAB procedures (Botox: 10 vs 4.5, P <.001; sacral neuromodulation: 13.2 vs 7.9, P <.001) than non-URPS urologists. URPS training was associated with higher odds of performing these procedures (odds ratios (ORs) 8.3-25.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) [5.97-45.84] P <.01). The proportion of non-URPS urologists performing SUI and prolapse procedures declined over the years (Spearman’s ρ = −0.79 to −0.94, P <.01), while the adoption of OAB procedures increased.

Conclusion

Our findings revealed a gradual shift in practice patterns toward increasing subspecialization, particularly for SUI and prolapse surgeries. Interestingly, minimally invasive OAB treatments are increasingly adopted by non-URPS urologists, likely due to improvements in surgical techniques and the development of new technology.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.