Practice Variation in the Management of Adult Hydroceles: A Multinational Survey

• Published in: European Urology Open Science
• Main Authors: Mikko Forss, Kostiantyn Bolsunovskyi, Yung Lee, Tuomas P. Kilpeläinen, Yoshitaka Aoki, Sigurdur Gudjonsson, François Hervé, Petrus Järvinen, Sachin Malde, Katsuhito Miyazawa, Jukka Sairanen, Lotte Sander, Philippe D. Violette, Lambertus P.W. Witte, Gordon H. Guyatt, Kari A.O. Tikkinen
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2023
• Subjects: Hydrocele; Physicians’ practice patterns; Practice variation; Surgical procedures; operative; Survey; Treatment outcome; Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology; RC870-923; Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens; RC254-282; Iceland
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2023.09.005; https://doaj.org/article/879c4165cbc540d1b9aafeb4e50a6996

Background: Although hydrocele is one of the most common urologic pathologies, it is seldom studied, and the major urologic associations have no guidelines for the management of adult hydroceles. Objective: To characterize international practice variation in the treatment of adult hydroceles. Design, setting, and participants: An international survey was conducted addressing the management of hydroceles among urologists in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Japan, and the Netherlands from September to December 2020. We invited a random sample of 170 urologists from each country (except Iceland). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Urologists’ treatment options, factors relevant for decision-making, expected patient satisfaction, and outcomes after aspiration versus surgery were assessed. Results and limitations: Of the 864 urologists contacted, 437 (51%) participated. Of the respondents, 202 (53%) performed both hydrocelectomies and aspiration, 147 (39%) performed hydrocelectomies only, and 30 (8%) performed aspiration only. In Belgium (83%), the Netherlands (75%), and Denmark (55%), urologists primarily performed hydrocelectomies only, whereas in Finland (84%), Japan (61%), and Iceland (91%), urologists performed both hydrocelectomies and aspiration. Urologists favored hydrocelectomy for large hydroceles (78.8% vs 37.5% for small), younger patients (66.0% for patients <50 yr vs 41.2% for ≥70 yr), patients with few or no comorbidities (62.3% vs 23.1% with multiple comorbidities), and patients without antithrombotic agents (53.5% vs 36.5% with antithrombotic agents). Most urologists considered patient satisfaction to be highest after hydrocelectomy (53.8% vs 9.9% after aspiration) despite believing that hydrocelectomy is more likely to cause complications (hematoma 77.8% vs 8.8% after aspiration). Estimates varied between countries. Conclusions: We found a large variation in the treatment of adult hydroceles within and between countries. Optimization of hydrocele management globally will require ...