The knowledge and opinions of urology doctors in turkey of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis: a survey study

Kübra Özgök Kangal, Kübra Canarslan Demir
{"title":"The knowledge and opinions of urology doctors in turkey of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis: a survey study","authors":"Kübra Özgök Kangal, Kübra Canarslan Demir","doi":"10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-822434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis (RHC) is an accepted hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) indication. We aimed to analyze the knowledge and the opinions of urology physicians on HBOT in RHS patients with a survey.\nMaterials and Methods: The questionnaires were conducted face to face or online on urology physicians.\nResults: Seventy-seven urology physicians participated in our study. Physicians have been working for 11 ± 10.5 years in the field of Urology. The 84.4% of our physicians had an average of 0-10 RHC patient administration in a year. However, the majority of the participants stated that they have never referred RHC patients to HBOT. Similarly, 48.1% of the physicians stated that they have insufficient knowledge of HBOT for their specialty. On the other hand, the majority were not sure about the HBOT as an effective treatment option in RHC patients (54.5%), about the cost-effectiveness of HBOT for RHC (66.2%), and the ability of HBOT on shortening the recovery period of RHC patients (49.9%). We observed that physicians who did not have any knowledge on HBOT had statistically significantly lower RHC patient referral rates to HBOT and had more negative opinions on the effectiveness of HBOT in RHC patients (respectively p<0.001, p=0.002). Likewise, physicians who had RHC patient admissions had statistically significantly more positive opinions about HBOT in terms of treatment efficiency, shortening the recovery period, and being a safe treatment option in RHC patients compared to the physicians who did not have any RHC patient admissions (respectively p<0.001, p<0,001, p<0.001).\nConclusion: We found that the urology physicians’ knowledge of HBOT application in RHC patients was insufficient. Thus, we realized that they were doubtful about HBOT as an effective RHC treatment option. Likewise, we found out that most of the urology physicians do not refer RHC patients for HBOT.\nKeywords: hyperbaric oxygen therapy, cystitis, radiation injuries, bladder, urologists","PeriodicalId":33828,"journal":{"name":"Yeni Uroloji Dergisi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yeni Uroloji Dergisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-822434","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis (RHC) is an accepted hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) indication. We aimed to analyze the knowledge and the opinions of urology physicians on HBOT in RHS patients with a survey. Materials and Methods: The questionnaires were conducted face to face or online on urology physicians. Results: Seventy-seven urology physicians participated in our study. Physicians have been working for 11 ± 10.5 years in the field of Urology. The 84.4% of our physicians had an average of 0-10 RHC patient administration in a year. However, the majority of the participants stated that they have never referred RHC patients to HBOT. Similarly, 48.1% of the physicians stated that they have insufficient knowledge of HBOT for their specialty. On the other hand, the majority were not sure about the HBOT as an effective treatment option in RHC patients (54.5%), about the cost-effectiveness of HBOT for RHC (66.2%), and the ability of HBOT on shortening the recovery period of RHC patients (49.9%). We observed that physicians who did not have any knowledge on HBOT had statistically significantly lower RHC patient referral rates to HBOT and had more negative opinions on the effectiveness of HBOT in RHC patients (respectively p<0.001, p=0.002). Likewise, physicians who had RHC patient admissions had statistically significantly more positive opinions about HBOT in terms of treatment efficiency, shortening the recovery period, and being a safe treatment option in RHC patients compared to the physicians who did not have any RHC patient admissions (respectively p<0.001, p<0,001, p<0.001). Conclusion: We found that the urology physicians’ knowledge of HBOT application in RHC patients was insufficient. Thus, we realized that they were doubtful about HBOT as an effective RHC treatment option. Likewise, we found out that most of the urology physicians do not refer RHC patients for HBOT. Keywords: hyperbaric oxygen therapy, cystitis, radiation injuries, bladder, urologists
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
土耳其泌尿科医生对高压氧治疗放射性出血性膀胱炎的认识和意见的调查研究
目的:放射性出血性膀胱炎(RHC)是公认的高压氧治疗(HBOT)适应症。我们旨在通过一项调查来分析泌尿科医生对RHS患者HBOT的认识和意见。材料和方法:问卷调查采用面对面或在线方式在泌尿科医生中进行。结果:77名泌尿科医生参与了我们的研究。医生在泌尿外科领域已经工作了11±10.5年。84.4%的医生在一年内平均给药0-10次RHC患者。然而,大多数参与者表示,他们从未将RHC患者转介给HBOT。同样,48.1%的医生表示,他们对HBOT的专业知识不足。另一方面,大多数人不确定HBOT是否是RHC患者的有效治疗选择(54.5%)、HBOT对RHC的成本效益(66.2%)、,以及HBOT缩短RHC患者恢复期的能力(49.9%),有RHC患者入院的医生对HBOT在治疗效率、缩短恢复期等方面有统计学上显著更积极的意见,与没有任何RHC患者入院的医生相比,是RHC患者的安全治疗选择(分别为p<0.001,p<0001,p<0.001)。结论:我们发现泌尿科医生对HBOT在RHC患者中的应用知识不足。因此,我们意识到他们怀疑HBOT是否是一种有效的RHC治疗方案。同样,我们发现大多数泌尿科医生不推荐RHC患者进行HBOT。关键词:高压氧治疗、膀胱炎、放射性损伤、膀胱、泌尿科医生
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
3 weeks
期刊最新文献
Does Depth of Anesthesia Effect Clinical Results of Patients Who Underwent Radical Cystectomy in Accordance with Eras Protocols? The Effects of Viburnum Opulus L. on Kidneys of Rats with Ethylene Glycol-induced Nephrolithiasis Evaluation of the Quality of Life of Patients Who Use Intermittant SelfCatheterization by Themselves and by Their Caregivers Assessment of Hematological Parameters in the Diagnosis Brucella Epididymorchitis: Comparison of Brucella Epididymorchitis and Non-Brucella Epididymorchitis An Unusual Presentation of Penile Kaposi’s Sarcoma in an HIV-Negative Patient with a Circumcised Penis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1