PD28-07 ONLINE ACCESS TO PENILE PROSTHETIC SURGEONS: THE CHALLENGE OF FINDING A SPECIALIST

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Evaluation I (PD28)1 Apr 2020PD28-07 ONLINE ACCESS TO PENILE PROSTHETIC SURGEONS: THE CHALLENGE OF FINDING A SPECIALIST Caleb Cooper*, Richard Fantus, Brian Helfand, Robert Brannigan, Nelson Bennet, and Joshua Halpern Caleb Cooper*Caleb Cooper* More articles by this author , Richard FantusRichard Fantus More articles by this author , Brian HelfandBrian Helfand More articles by this author , Robert BranniganRobert Brannigan More articles by this author , Nelson BennetNelson Bennet More articles by this author , and Joshua HalpernJoshua Halpern More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000892.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: When performed by experienced urologists, penile prosthesis implantation has lower infection and reoperation rates. Recent literature suggests that the Internet has become an increasingly popular source of information for patients regarding erectile dysfunction. We examined internet search results to understand the ease with which patients can identify a penile prosthetic specialist online. METHODS: An internet search was conducted using the term "penile prosthesis surgeon <state>" for all 50 states and Washington, DC. The first ten results (i.e. first page) of each search were evaluated for website type, practice type (individual or group-based), academic or private-practice affiliation, and Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) affiliation. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings. We examined search position rank (1-10) to determine the likelihood of finding a SMSNA-affiliated provider. RESULTS: A total of 510 search results were obtained, with 508 leading to active sites. Of these sites, 72 (14.1%) were links to individual urologists, 123 (24.2%) to group-based urologists, 46 (9.0%) to out-of-state providers, and 13 (2.8%) to non-urologist providers. An additional 25.7% led to directory sites, 9.8% to academic articles, 12.6% to non-academic and news articles, and 1.8% to industry-related websites. Of the results that linked to urologists, 20.6% had an academic-affiliation and 79.4% were non-academic or private-practice affiliated. A total of 39.3% of the individual and group-urologist results linked to a SMSNA member provider. The mean search position for SMSNA-affiliated results was 5.5 ±2.8. Of all search results in a top-3 position, only 28 (18%) of the results represented SMSNA member urologists. CONCLUSIONS: For many people, the search for goods & services begin online. In fact, 80% of Internet users have searched for health-related topics online. Interestingly, we found less than 50% of internet search results linked to a urologist specializing in penile prosthetics. Furthermore, less than a quarter of all top-3 search results led to an SMSNA-affiliated urologist. Our data show that there is a need for an online, centralized, search-optimized, continually updated database that will provide prospective patients with information & realistic expectations in the area of penile prosthetics. Source of Funding: None. © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e614-e614 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Caleb Cooper* More articles by this author Richard Fantus More articles by this author Brian Helfand More articles by this author Robert Brannigan More articles by this author Nelson Bennet More articles by this author Joshua Halpern More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...