Clinical Review

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, pruritic, inflammatory skin disease that occurs most frequently in children but also affects many adolescents and adults. There has been a tremendous evolution of knowledge in AD, with insights into pathogenesis, epidemiology, impact of disease, and new therapies. A variety of studies examine the epidemiology of AD and associated comorbidities. The broad developments in disease state research are reflected in new publication numbers of AD citations on PubMed. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE at the end of 2010 using the term atopic dermatitis would have shown 965 citations during the preceding 1-year period. In the 1-year period of June 2019 to June 2020, there were more than 2000 articles. The large body of research includes work of great significance in pediatric AD, and in this article we review recent findings that are important in understanding the progress being made in the field.

Epidemiology and Comorbidities

The epidemiology of AD has evolved over the last few decades, with emerging trends and novel insights into the burden of disease.¹ In a recent cross-sectional study on the epidemiology of AD in children aged 6 to 11 years, the 1-year diagnosed AD prevalence estimates worldwide included the following: United States, 10.0%; Canada, 13.3%; the EU5 Countries, 15.5%; Japan, 10.3%; and all countries studied, 12.2%.² Another recent paper that analyzed data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study showed that the prevalence and persistence of AD in urban US children was 15.0%.³Although pediatric AD may spontaneously remit over time, disease continuing into adolescence and adulthood is common. Paternoster et al⁴ studied the longitudinal course of AD in children from 2 birth cohort prospective studies, showing distinct AD phenotypes having differing course trajectories over time. Disease subsets included patients with early-onset-persistent and early-onset-late-resolving disease.⁴ Whether phenotyping or subgroup analysis can be used to predict disease course or risk for development of comorbidities is unknown, but it is interesting to consider how such work could influence tailoring of specific therapies to early disease presentation.

Atopic dermatitis poses a serious public health burden owing to its high prevalence, considerable morbidity and disability, increased health care utilization, and cost of care.¹ Recent studies have found notably higher rates of multiple medical and mental health comorbidities in both children and adults with AD, including infections, atopic comorbidities (eg, allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergies), eye diseases (eg, keratitis, conjunctivitis, keratoconus), and possible cardiovascular diseases and autoimmune disorders.^1,5-9 Allergic comorbidities are quite common in pediatric AD patients.¹⁰ In a recent study examining the efficacy and safety of dupilumab monotherapy in 251 adolescents with moderate to severe inadequately controlled AD, most had comorbid type 2 diseases including asthma (53.6%), food allergies (60.8%), and allergic rhinitis (65.6%).¹¹

Quality of Life/Life Impact of AD

Pediatric AD has a major impact on the quality of life of patients and their families.¹² The well-being and development of children are strongly influenced by the physical and psychosocial health of parents/guardians. Two studies by Ramirez and colleagues^13,14 published in 2019 examined sleep disturbances and exhaustion in mothers of children with AD. Data for the studies came from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Children with active AD reported worse sleep quality than those without AD, with nearly 50% higher odds of sleep-quality disturbances. Analysis of the cohort data from 11,649 mother-child pairs who were followed up with a time-varying measure of child AD activity and severity as well as self-reported maternal sleep measures repeated at multiple time points for children aged 6 months to 11 years showed that mothers of children with AD reported difficulty falling asleep, subjectively insufficient sleep, and daytime exhaustion throughout the first 11 years of childhood.^13,14 These data suggest that sleep disturbance may be a family affair.

A cross-sectional, real-world study on the burden of AD in children aged 6 to 11 years assessed by self-report demonstrated a substantial and multidimensional impact of AD, including itch, sleep disturbance, skin pain, and health-related quality-of-life impact, as well as comorbidities and school productivity losses. The burden associated with AD was remarkable and increased with disease severity.¹⁵

Drucker et al¹⁶ completed a comprehensive literature review on the burden of AD, summarized as a report for the National Eczema Association. Quality-of-life impact on pediatric patients included high rates of emotional distress; social isolation; depression; limitations in activities due to lesions with fear of triggers; and behavioral problems such as irritability, crying, and sleep disturbance resulting in difficulty performing at school.¹⁶ The psychological impact on children as well as emotional and behavioral difficulties may impact the ability for parents/guardians to implement treatment plans.¹⁷

There is a striking association between mental health disorders and AD in the US pediatric population, with a clear dose-dependent relationship that has been observed between the prevalence of a mental health disorder and the reported severity of the skin disease. Data suggest children with AD may be at increased risk for developing mental health disorders. The National Survey of Children’s Health found statistically significant increases in the likelihood of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (odds ratio [OR], 1.87), depression (OR, 1.81), anxiety (OR, 1.77), conduct disorder (OR, 1.87), and autism (OR, 3.04).⁶

Evolving Practices and Therapies

Bathing Practices
There has long been much controversy regarding best bathing habits for patients with AD. In a 2009 study, cutaneous hydration was quantified after various bathing and moisturizing regimens.¹⁸ The study showed clear benefits of emollient application on skin hydration, either after bathing or without bathing. Bathing followed by emollient applications did not decrease skin hydration in contrast to bathing without emollient application.¹⁸

There are limited studies evaluating bathing frequency in pediatric patients, and many families receive conflicting information regarding best practice. In one study that surveyed 354 parents, more than 75% of parents/guardians who had seen multiple providers for their child’s AD reported a substantial amount of confusion and frustration from conflicting advice on bathing frequency.¹⁹ Cardona et al²⁰ undertook a randomized clinical trial of frequent bathing and moisturizing vs less-frequent bathing and moisturizing in pediatric patients with AD aged 6 months to 11 years. Patients were divided into 2 groups: 1 being bathed twice daily with immediate moisturizer application and the other being bathed twice weekly followed by moisturization, then a switch to the other method. Patients used standardized topical corticosteroids (TCSs) in both groups. There were significant improvements in scoring AD and other objective measures during the frequent bathing time period vs infrequent bathing; in the group that bathed more frequently, SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis) decreased by 21.2 compared with the group that bathed less frequently (95% confidence interval, 14.9-27.6; P<.0001). These findings suggest that more-frequent bathing with immediate moisturization is superior as an acute treatment intervention for improving AD disease severity in comparison to less-frequent bathing with immediate moisturization.²⁰

Expanding Treatment Options

Topical Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors
There are several new and evolving topical therapies in AD. Crisaborole ointment 2% is a steroid-free phosphodiesterase inhibitor approved in 2016 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 2 years and older. A recent multicenter, open-label, single-arm study in 137 infants (CrisADe CARE 1) evaluated the pharmacokinetics and efficacy of crisaborole ointment 2% applied twice daily for 4 weeks in pediatric patients aged 3 months to less than 24 months of age with mild to moderate AD.²¹ The study had 2 cohorts: one with a minimum of 5% body surface area involvement and another (the pharmacokinetic cohort) with a minimum of 35% body surface area involvement. Both cohorts demonstrated similar efficacy data. From baseline to day 29, the mean percentage change in eczema area and severity index (EASI) score was −57.5%, and an investigator global assessment (IGA) score of clear or almost clear with at least a 2-grade improvement was achieved in 30.2% of patients. Crisaborole systemic exposures in infants were comparable with those in patients aged 2 years or older. Patients tolerated crisaborole well, with a 4% rate of burning, which was similar to other studies in children and adults but perhaps lower than seen in clinical practice. Pharmacokinetic studies did not show any remarkable noticeable concern with accumulation of propylene glycol absorption.²¹

Based on the CrisADe CARE 1 study data, in March 2020 the FDA extended the indication of crisaborole ointment 2% from a prior lower age limit of 24 months to approval for use in treating mild to moderate AD in children as young as 3 months, making it the first nonsteroidal topical anti-inflammatory medication to be approved in children younger than 2 years in the United States.

Evolving Topical Therapies

Topical Janus Kinase Inhibitors
Ruxolitinib is a potent inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK-1) and Janus kinase 2 (JAK-2) and has been developed in topical formulations. In recent phase 3 clinical trials of patients with AD aged 12 years and older with mild to moderate disease (TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2), more than half of the patients treated with either ruxolitinib cream in a 0.75% or 1.5% concentration reached EASI-75 after 8 weeks of treatment.²² Additionally, more patients treated with topical ruxolitinib reached an IGA score of clear to almost clear than patients treated with vehicle at the end of treatment. Thus far, it appears to be very well tolerated, significantly decreases EASI score (P<.0001), and improves overall pruritus.²²

Delgocitinib is a topical pan-JAK inhibitor that blocks several cytokine-signaling cascade pathways. It was first developed and approved in Japan in an ointment formulation for use in patients with AD aged 16 years and older.²³ The efficacy and safety profile of delgocitinib is currently being evaluated in pediatric patients with AD in Japan. In a recent phase 2 clinical study of 103 Japanese patients aged 2 to 15 years with moderate to severe AD, patients were randomized to receive either delgocitinib ointment in 0.25% or 0.5% concentrations or vehicle ointment twice daily for 4 weeks. The proportion of patients with a modified EASI-75 score was 38.2% (13/34) in the 0.25% group and 50.0% (17/34) in the 0.5% group vs 8.6% (3/35) in the placebo group. More patients treated with delgocitinib ointment received an IGA score of clear or almost clear than patients treated with vehicle at the end of treatment. Overall, both delgocitinib groups demonstrated superior improvement in clinical symptoms and signs without notable side effects.²⁴

Tapinarof
Tapinarof is a topical therapeutic aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist. In a recent phase 2 randomized study of 2 concentrations and 2 frequencies of tapinarof cream vs vehicle in 247 randomized patients aged 12 to 65 years with moderate to severe disease, tapinarof demonstrated greater success with both concentrations than vehicle at all visits beyond week 2.²⁵ Additionally, in patients treated with tapinarof cream 1%, nearly 50% reached an IGA score of clear to almost clear with at least a 2-grade improvement. More than 50% of patients achieved EASI-75 improvement at 12 weeks of treatment with tapinarof cream 1% used daily. These findings suggest that tapinarof may be an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for both adolescents and adults with AD; however, large confirmation trials are needed to further investigate.²⁵

Systemic Treatments

Oral JAK Inhibitors
Some of the most exciting novel therapies include several oral JAK inhibitors that target different combinations of kinases and have been shown to decrease AD severity and symptoms. Some of these agents have indications in other disease states, such as baricitinib and upadacitinib, which are both FDA approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, whereas others, such as abrocitinib, have been studied specifically for AD.

Although some agents have only been studied in adults to date, others have included adolescents in their core studies, such as abrocitinib, which received Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD in February 2018. In recent phase 3 trials of patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe AD (JADE MONO-1 and JADE MONO-2), both doses of abrocitinib improved the IGA and EASI-75 outcomes compared with placebo.²⁶ Additional studies will be conducted to further investigate the relative efficacy and safety in patients younger than 18 years.

Biologics
Dupilumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling without suppressing the immune system. It is approved for use in patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe asthma and in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. It is the first biologic to show positive results in the moderate to severe pediatric AD population. There are now extended data available exhibiting sustained benefit in adolescent patients who were continued on dupilumab therapy, evidenced by further improvement in EASI scores at the 1-year mark.²⁷

Recently, dupilumab received approval for use in patients aged 6 to 11 years, making it the first biologic for AD to be approved for use in patients younger than 12 years. The expedited FDA approval was based on the phase 3 results in which the efficacy and safety of dupilumab combined with TCSs were compared to TCSs alone (N=367).²⁸ In this trial, more than twice as many children achieved clear or almost clear skin and more than 4 times as many achieved itch reduction with dupilumab plus TCSs than with TCSs alone. Three-quarters of patients receiving dupilumab at the subsequently approved dosing achieved at least a 75% improvement in overall disease.²⁸ An additional study is being conducted that includes pediatric patients aged 6 months to younger than 6 years (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03346434).

Future Directions in Pediatric AD

Our review summarizes only some of the agents under clinical investigation for use in pediatric AD. Early treatment to establish excellent long-term disease control with aggressive topical regimens or with systemic agents may alter the course of AD and influence the development of comorbidities, though this has not yet been shown in clinical studies. The long-term impact of early treatment, along with many other intriguing issues, will be studied more in the near future.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, pruritic, inflammatory skin disease that occurs most frequently in children but also affects many adolescents and adults. There has been a tremendous evolution of knowledge in AD, with insights into pathogenesis, epidemiology, impact of disease, and new therapies. A variety of studies examine the epidemiology of AD and associated comorbidities. The broad developments in disease state research are reflected in new publication numbers of AD citations on PubMed. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE at the end of 2010 using the term atopic dermatitis would have shown 965 citations during the preceding 1-year period. In the 1-year period of June 2019 to June 2020, there were more than 2000 articles. The large body of research includes work of great significance in pediatric AD, and in this article we review recent findings that are important in understanding the progress being made in the field.

Epidemiology and Comorbidities

The epidemiology of AD has evolved over the last few decades, with emerging trends and novel insights into the burden of disease.¹ In a recent cross-sectional study on the epidemiology of AD in children aged 6 to 11 years, the 1-year diagnosed AD prevalence estimates worldwide included the following: United States, 10.0%; Canada, 13.3%; the EU5 Countries, 15.5%; Japan, 10.3%; and all countries studied, 12.2%.² Another recent paper that analyzed data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study showed that the prevalence and persistence of AD in urban US children was 15.0%.³Although pediatric AD may spontaneously remit over time, disease continuing into adolescence and adulthood is common. Paternoster et al⁴ studied the longitudinal course of AD in children from 2 birth cohort prospective studies, showing distinct AD phenotypes having differing course trajectories over time. Disease subsets included patients with early-onset-persistent and early-onset-late-resolving disease.⁴ Whether phenotyping or subgroup analysis can be used to predict disease course or risk for development of comorbidities is unknown, but it is interesting to consider how such work could influence tailoring of specific therapies to early disease presentation.

Atopic dermatitis poses a serious public health burden owing to its high prevalence, considerable morbidity and disability, increased health care utilization, and cost of care.¹ Recent studies have found notably higher rates of multiple medical and mental health comorbidities in both children and adults with AD, including infections, atopic comorbidities (eg, allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergies), eye diseases (eg, keratitis, conjunctivitis, keratoconus), and possible cardiovascular diseases and autoimmune disorders.^1,5-9 Allergic comorbidities are quite common in pediatric AD patients.¹⁰ In a recent study examining the efficacy and safety of dupilumab monotherapy in 251 adolescents with moderate to severe inadequately controlled AD, most had comorbid type 2 diseases including asthma (53.6%), food allergies (60.8%), and allergic rhinitis (65.6%).¹¹

Quality of Life/Life Impact of AD

Pediatric AD has a major impact on the quality of life of patients and their families.¹² The well-being and development of children are strongly influenced by the physical and psychosocial health of parents/guardians. Two studies by Ramirez and colleagues^13,14 published in 2019 examined sleep disturbances and exhaustion in mothers of children with AD. Data for the studies came from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Children with active AD reported worse sleep quality than those without AD, with nearly 50% higher odds of sleep-quality disturbances. Analysis of the cohort data from 11,649 mother-child pairs who were followed up with a time-varying measure of child AD activity and severity as well as self-reported maternal sleep measures repeated at multiple time points for children aged 6 months to 11 years showed that mothers of children with AD reported difficulty falling asleep, subjectively insufficient sleep, and daytime exhaustion throughout the first 11 years of childhood.^13,14 These data suggest that sleep disturbance may be a family affair.

A cross-sectional, real-world study on the burden of AD in children aged 6 to 11 years assessed by self-report demonstrated a substantial and multidimensional impact of AD, including itch, sleep disturbance, skin pain, and health-related quality-of-life impact, as well as comorbidities and school productivity losses. The burden associated with AD was remarkable and increased with disease severity.¹⁵

Drucker et al¹⁶ completed a comprehensive literature review on the burden of AD, summarized as a report for the National Eczema Association. Quality-of-life impact on pediatric patients included high rates of emotional distress; social isolation; depression; limitations in activities due to lesions with fear of triggers; and behavioral problems such as irritability, crying, and sleep disturbance resulting in difficulty performing at school.¹⁶ The psychological impact on children as well as emotional and behavioral difficulties may impact the ability for parents/guardians to implement treatment plans.¹⁷

There is a striking association between mental health disorders and AD in the US pediatric population, with a clear dose-dependent relationship that has been observed between the prevalence of a mental health disorder and the reported severity of the skin disease. Data suggest children with AD may be at increased risk for developing mental health disorders. The National Survey of Children’s Health found statistically significant increases in the likelihood of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (odds ratio [OR], 1.87), depression (OR, 1.81), anxiety (OR, 1.77), conduct disorder (OR, 1.87), and autism (OR, 3.04).⁶

Evolving Practices and Therapies

Bathing Practices
There has long been much controversy regarding best bathing habits for patients with AD. In a 2009 study, cutaneous hydration was quantified after various bathing and moisturizing regimens.¹⁸ The study showed clear benefits of emollient application on skin hydration, either after bathing or without bathing. Bathing followed by emollient applications did not decrease skin hydration in contrast to bathing without emollient application.¹⁸

There are limited studies evaluating bathing frequency in pediatric patients, and many families receive conflicting information regarding best practice. In one study that surveyed 354 parents, more than 75% of parents/guardians who had seen multiple providers for their child’s AD reported a substantial amount of confusion and frustration from conflicting advice on bathing frequency.¹⁹ Cardona et al²⁰ undertook a randomized clinical trial of frequent bathing and moisturizing vs less-frequent bathing and moisturizing in pediatric patients with AD aged 6 months to 11 years. Patients were divided into 2 groups: 1 being bathed twice daily with immediate moisturizer application and the other being bathed twice weekly followed by moisturization, then a switch to the other method. Patients used standardized topical corticosteroids (TCSs) in both groups. There were significant improvements in scoring AD and other objective measures during the frequent bathing time period vs infrequent bathing; in the group that bathed more frequently, SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis) decreased by 21.2 compared with the group that bathed less frequently (95% confidence interval, 14.9-27.6; P<.0001). These findings suggest that more-frequent bathing with immediate moisturization is superior as an acute treatment intervention for improving AD disease severity in comparison to less-frequent bathing with immediate moisturization.²⁰

Expanding Treatment Options

Topical Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors
There are several new and evolving topical therapies in AD. Crisaborole ointment 2% is a steroid-free phosphodiesterase inhibitor approved in 2016 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 2 years and older. A recent multicenter, open-label, single-arm study in 137 infants (CrisADe CARE 1) evaluated the pharmacokinetics and efficacy of crisaborole ointment 2% applied twice daily for 4 weeks in pediatric patients aged 3 months to less than 24 months of age with mild to moderate AD.²¹ The study had 2 cohorts: one with a minimum of 5% body surface area involvement and another (the pharmacokinetic cohort) with a minimum of 35% body surface area involvement. Both cohorts demonstrated similar efficacy data. From baseline to day 29, the mean percentage change in eczema area and severity index (EASI) score was −57.5%, and an investigator global assessment (IGA) score of clear or almost clear with at least a 2-grade improvement was achieved in 30.2% of patients. Crisaborole systemic exposures in infants were comparable with those in patients aged 2 years or older. Patients tolerated crisaborole well, with a 4% rate of burning, which was similar to other studies in children and adults but perhaps lower than seen in clinical practice. Pharmacokinetic studies did not show any remarkable noticeable concern with accumulation of propylene glycol absorption.²¹

Based on the CrisADe CARE 1 study data, in March 2020 the FDA extended the indication of crisaborole ointment 2% from a prior lower age limit of 24 months to approval for use in treating mild to moderate AD in children as young as 3 months, making it the first nonsteroidal topical anti-inflammatory medication to be approved in children younger than 2 years in the United States.

Evolving Topical Therapies

Topical Janus Kinase Inhibitors
Ruxolitinib is a potent inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK-1) and Janus kinase 2 (JAK-2) and has been developed in topical formulations. In recent phase 3 clinical trials of patients with AD aged 12 years and older with mild to moderate disease (TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2), more than half of the patients treated with either ruxolitinib cream in a 0.75% or 1.5% concentration reached EASI-75 after 8 weeks of treatment.²² Additionally, more patients treated with topical ruxolitinib reached an IGA score of clear to almost clear than patients treated with vehicle at the end of treatment. Thus far, it appears to be very well tolerated, significantly decreases EASI score (P<.0001), and improves overall pruritus.²²

Delgocitinib is a topical pan-JAK inhibitor that blocks several cytokine-signaling cascade pathways. It was first developed and approved in Japan in an ointment formulation for use in patients with AD aged 16 years and older.²³ The efficacy and safety profile of delgocitinib is currently being evaluated in pediatric patients with AD in Japan. In a recent phase 2 clinical study of 103 Japanese patients aged 2 to 15 years with moderate to severe AD, patients were randomized to receive either delgocitinib ointment in 0.25% or 0.5% concentrations or vehicle ointment twice daily for 4 weeks. The proportion of patients with a modified EASI-75 score was 38.2% (13/34) in the 0.25% group and 50.0% (17/34) in the 0.5% group vs 8.6% (3/35) in the placebo group. More patients treated with delgocitinib ointment received an IGA score of clear or almost clear than patients treated with vehicle at the end of treatment. Overall, both delgocitinib groups demonstrated superior improvement in clinical symptoms and signs without notable side effects.²⁴

Tapinarof
Tapinarof is a topical therapeutic aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist. In a recent phase 2 randomized study of 2 concentrations and 2 frequencies of tapinarof cream vs vehicle in 247 randomized patients aged 12 to 65 years with moderate to severe disease, tapinarof demonstrated greater success with both concentrations than vehicle at all visits beyond week 2.²⁵ Additionally, in patients treated with tapinarof cream 1%, nearly 50% reached an IGA score of clear to almost clear with at least a 2-grade improvement. More than 50% of patients achieved EASI-75 improvement at 12 weeks of treatment with tapinarof cream 1% used daily. These findings suggest that tapinarof may be an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for both adolescents and adults with AD; however, large confirmation trials are needed to further investigate.²⁵

Systemic Treatments

Oral JAK Inhibitors
Some of the most exciting novel therapies include several oral JAK inhibitors that target different combinations of kinases and have been shown to decrease AD severity and symptoms. Some of these agents have indications in other disease states, such as baricitinib and upadacitinib, which are both FDA approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, whereas others, such as abrocitinib, have been studied specifically for AD.

Although some agents have only been studied in adults to date, others have included adolescents in their core studies, such as abrocitinib, which received Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD in February 2018. In recent phase 3 trials of patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe AD (JADE MONO-1 and JADE MONO-2), both doses of abrocitinib improved the IGA and EASI-75 outcomes compared with placebo.²⁶ Additional studies will be conducted to further investigate the relative efficacy and safety in patients younger than 18 years.

Biologics
Dupilumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling without suppressing the immune system. It is approved for use in patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe asthma and in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. It is the first biologic to show positive results in the moderate to severe pediatric AD population. There are now extended data available exhibiting sustained benefit in adolescent patients who were continued on dupilumab therapy, evidenced by further improvement in EASI scores at the 1-year mark.²⁷

Recently, dupilumab received approval for use in patients aged 6 to 11 years, making it the first biologic for AD to be approved for use in patients younger than 12 years. The expedited FDA approval was based on the phase 3 results in which the efficacy and safety of dupilumab combined with TCSs were compared to TCSs alone (N=367).²⁸ In this trial, more than twice as many children achieved clear or almost clear skin and more than 4 times as many achieved itch reduction with dupilumab plus TCSs than with TCSs alone. Three-quarters of patients receiving dupilumab at the subsequently approved dosing achieved at least a 75% improvement in overall disease.²⁸ An additional study is being conducted that includes pediatric patients aged 6 months to younger than 6 years (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03346434).

Future Directions in Pediatric AD

Our review summarizes only some of the agents under clinical investigation for use in pediatric AD. Early treatment to establish excellent long-term disease control with aggressive topical regimens or with systemic agents may alter the course of AD and influence the development of comorbidities, though this has not yet been shown in clinical studies. The long-term impact of early treatment, along with many other intriguing issues, will be studied more in the near future.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, pruritic, inflammatory skin disease that occurs most frequently in children but also affects many adolescents and adults. There has been a tremendous evolution of knowledge in AD, with insights into pathogenesis, epidemiology, impact of disease, and new therapies. A variety of studies examine the epidemiology of AD and associated comorbidities. The broad developments in disease state research are reflected in new publication numbers of AD citations on PubMed. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE at the end of 2010 using the term atopic dermatitis would have shown 965 citations during the preceding 1-year period. In the 1-year period of June 2019 to June 2020, there were more than 2000 articles. The large body of research includes work of great significance in pediatric AD, and in this article we review recent findings that are important in understanding the progress being made in the field.

Epidemiology and Comorbidities

The epidemiology of AD has evolved over the last few decades, with emerging trends and novel insights into the burden of disease.¹ In a recent cross-sectional study on the epidemiology of AD in children aged 6 to 11 years, the 1-year diagnosed AD prevalence estimates worldwide included the following: United States, 10.0%; Canada, 13.3%; the EU5 Countries, 15.5%; Japan, 10.3%; and all countries studied, 12.2%.² Another recent paper that analyzed data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study showed that the prevalence and persistence of AD in urban US children was 15.0%.³Although pediatric AD may spontaneously remit over time, disease continuing into adolescence and adulthood is common. Paternoster et al⁴ studied the longitudinal course of AD in children from 2 birth cohort prospective studies, showing distinct AD phenotypes having differing course trajectories over time. Disease subsets included patients with early-onset-persistent and early-onset-late-resolving disease.⁴ Whether phenotyping or subgroup analysis can be used to predict disease course or risk for development of comorbidities is unknown, but it is interesting to consider how such work could influence tailoring of specific therapies to early disease presentation.

Atopic dermatitis poses a serious public health burden owing to its high prevalence, considerable morbidity and disability, increased health care utilization, and cost of care.¹ Recent studies have found notably higher rates of multiple medical and mental health comorbidities in both children and adults with AD, including infections, atopic comorbidities (eg, allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergies), eye diseases (eg, keratitis, conjunctivitis, keratoconus), and possible cardiovascular diseases and autoimmune disorders.^1,5-9 Allergic comorbidities are quite common in pediatric AD patients.¹⁰ In a recent study examining the efficacy and safety of dupilumab monotherapy in 251 adolescents with moderate to severe inadequately controlled AD, most had comorbid type 2 diseases including asthma (53.6%), food allergies (60.8%), and allergic rhinitis (65.6%).¹¹

Quality of Life/Life Impact of AD

Pediatric AD has a major impact on the quality of life of patients and their families.¹² The well-being and development of children are strongly influenced by the physical and psychosocial health of parents/guardians. Two studies by Ramirez and colleagues^13,14 published in 2019 examined sleep disturbances and exhaustion in mothers of children with AD. Data for the studies came from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Children with active AD reported worse sleep quality than those without AD, with nearly 50% higher odds of sleep-quality disturbances. Analysis of the cohort data from 11,649 mother-child pairs who were followed up with a time-varying measure of child AD activity and severity as well as self-reported maternal sleep measures repeated at multiple time points for children aged 6 months to 11 years showed that mothers of children with AD reported difficulty falling asleep, subjectively insufficient sleep, and daytime exhaustion throughout the first 11 years of childhood.^13,14 These data suggest that sleep disturbance may be a family affair.

A cross-sectional, real-world study on the burden of AD in children aged 6 to 11 years assessed by self-report demonstrated a substantial and multidimensional impact of AD, including itch, sleep disturbance, skin pain, and health-related quality-of-life impact, as well as comorbidities and school productivity losses. The burden associated with AD was remarkable and increased with disease severity.¹⁵

Drucker et al¹⁶ completed a comprehensive literature review on the burden of AD, summarized as a report for the National Eczema Association. Quality-of-life impact on pediatric patients included high rates of emotional distress; social isolation; depression; limitations in activities due to lesions with fear of triggers; and behavioral problems such as irritability, crying, and sleep disturbance resulting in difficulty performing at school.¹⁶ The psychological impact on children as well as emotional and behavioral difficulties may impact the ability for parents/guardians to implement treatment plans.¹⁷

There is a striking association between mental health disorders and AD in the US pediatric population, with a clear dose-dependent relationship that has been observed between the prevalence of a mental health disorder and the reported severity of the skin disease. Data suggest children with AD may be at increased risk for developing mental health disorders. The National Survey of Children’s Health found statistically significant increases in the likelihood of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (odds ratio [OR], 1.87), depression (OR, 1.81), anxiety (OR, 1.77), conduct disorder (OR, 1.87), and autism (OR, 3.04).⁶

Evolving Practices and Therapies

Bathing Practices
There has long been much controversy regarding best bathing habits for patients with AD. In a 2009 study, cutaneous hydration was quantified after various bathing and moisturizing regimens.¹⁸ The study showed clear benefits of emollient application on skin hydration, either after bathing or without bathing. Bathing followed by emollient applications did not decrease skin hydration in contrast to bathing without emollient application.¹⁸

There are limited studies evaluating bathing frequency in pediatric patients, and many families receive conflicting information regarding best practice. In one study that surveyed 354 parents, more than 75% of parents/guardians who had seen multiple providers for their child’s AD reported a substantial amount of confusion and frustration from conflicting advice on bathing frequency.¹⁹ Cardona et al²⁰ undertook a randomized clinical trial of frequent bathing and moisturizing vs less-frequent bathing and moisturizing in pediatric patients with AD aged 6 months to 11 years. Patients were divided into 2 groups: 1 being bathed twice daily with immediate moisturizer application and the other being bathed twice weekly followed by moisturization, then a switch to the other method. Patients used standardized topical corticosteroids (TCSs) in both groups. There were significant improvements in scoring AD and other objective measures during the frequent bathing time period vs infrequent bathing; in the group that bathed more frequently, SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis) decreased by 21.2 compared with the group that bathed less frequently (95% confidence interval, 14.9-27.6; P<.0001). These findings suggest that more-frequent bathing with immediate moisturization is superior as an acute treatment intervention for improving AD disease severity in comparison to less-frequent bathing with immediate moisturization.²⁰

Expanding Treatment Options

Topical Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors
There are several new and evolving topical therapies in AD. Crisaborole ointment 2% is a steroid-free phosphodiesterase inhibitor approved in 2016 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 2 years and older. A recent multicenter, open-label, single-arm study in 137 infants (CrisADe CARE 1) evaluated the pharmacokinetics and efficacy of crisaborole ointment 2% applied twice daily for 4 weeks in pediatric patients aged 3 months to less than 24 months of age with mild to moderate AD.²¹ The study had 2 cohorts: one with a minimum of 5% body surface area involvement and another (the pharmacokinetic cohort) with a minimum of 35% body surface area involvement. Both cohorts demonstrated similar efficacy data. From baseline to day 29, the mean percentage change in eczema area and severity index (EASI) score was −57.5%, and an investigator global assessment (IGA) score of clear or almost clear with at least a 2-grade improvement was achieved in 30.2% of patients. Crisaborole systemic exposures in infants were comparable with those in patients aged 2 years or older. Patients tolerated crisaborole well, with a 4% rate of burning, which was similar to other studies in children and adults but perhaps lower than seen in clinical practice. Pharmacokinetic studies did not show any remarkable noticeable concern with accumulation of propylene glycol absorption.²¹

Based on the CrisADe CARE 1 study data, in March 2020 the FDA extended the indication of crisaborole ointment 2% from a prior lower age limit of 24 months to approval for use in treating mild to moderate AD in children as young as 3 months, making it the first nonsteroidal topical anti-inflammatory medication to be approved in children younger than 2 years in the United States.

Evolving Topical Therapies

Topical Janus Kinase Inhibitors
Ruxolitinib is a potent inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK-1) and Janus kinase 2 (JAK-2) and has been developed in topical formulations. In recent phase 3 clinical trials of patients with AD aged 12 years and older with mild to moderate disease (TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2), more than half of the patients treated with either ruxolitinib cream in a 0.75% or 1.5% concentration reached EASI-75 after 8 weeks of treatment.²² Additionally, more patients treated with topical ruxolitinib reached an IGA score of clear to almost clear than patients treated with vehicle at the end of treatment. Thus far, it appears to be very well tolerated, significantly decreases EASI score (P<.0001), and improves overall pruritus.²²

Delgocitinib is a topical pan-JAK inhibitor that blocks several cytokine-signaling cascade pathways. It was first developed and approved in Japan in an ointment formulation for use in patients with AD aged 16 years and older.²³ The efficacy and safety profile of delgocitinib is currently being evaluated in pediatric patients with AD in Japan. In a recent phase 2 clinical study of 103 Japanese patients aged 2 to 15 years with moderate to severe AD, patients were randomized to receive either delgocitinib ointment in 0.25% or 0.5% concentrations or vehicle ointment twice daily for 4 weeks. The proportion of patients with a modified EASI-75 score was 38.2% (13/34) in the 0.25% group and 50.0% (17/34) in the 0.5% group vs 8.6% (3/35) in the placebo group. More patients treated with delgocitinib ointment received an IGA score of clear or almost clear than patients treated with vehicle at the end of treatment. Overall, both delgocitinib groups demonstrated superior improvement in clinical symptoms and signs without notable side effects.²⁴

Tapinarof
Tapinarof is a topical therapeutic aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist. In a recent phase 2 randomized study of 2 concentrations and 2 frequencies of tapinarof cream vs vehicle in 247 randomized patients aged 12 to 65 years with moderate to severe disease, tapinarof demonstrated greater success with both concentrations than vehicle at all visits beyond week 2.²⁵ Additionally, in patients treated with tapinarof cream 1%, nearly 50% reached an IGA score of clear to almost clear with at least a 2-grade improvement. More than 50% of patients achieved EASI-75 improvement at 12 weeks of treatment with tapinarof cream 1% used daily. These findings suggest that tapinarof may be an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for both adolescents and adults with AD; however, large confirmation trials are needed to further investigate.²⁵

Systemic Treatments

Oral JAK Inhibitors
Some of the most exciting novel therapies include several oral JAK inhibitors that target different combinations of kinases and have been shown to decrease AD severity and symptoms. Some of these agents have indications in other disease states, such as baricitinib and upadacitinib, which are both FDA approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, whereas others, such as abrocitinib, have been studied specifically for AD.

Although some agents have only been studied in adults to date, others have included adolescents in their core studies, such as abrocitinib, which received Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD in February 2018. In recent phase 3 trials of patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe AD (JADE MONO-1 and JADE MONO-2), both doses of abrocitinib improved the IGA and EASI-75 outcomes compared with placebo.²⁶ Additional studies will be conducted to further investigate the relative efficacy and safety in patients younger than 18 years.

Biologics
Dupilumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling without suppressing the immune system. It is approved for use in patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe asthma and in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. It is the first biologic to show positive results in the moderate to severe pediatric AD population. There are now extended data available exhibiting sustained benefit in adolescent patients who were continued on dupilumab therapy, evidenced by further improvement in EASI scores at the 1-year mark.²⁷

Recently, dupilumab received approval for use in patients aged 6 to 11 years, making it the first biologic for AD to be approved for use in patients younger than 12 years. The expedited FDA approval was based on the phase 3 results in which the efficacy and safety of dupilumab combined with TCSs were compared to TCSs alone (N=367).²⁸ In this trial, more than twice as many children achieved clear or almost clear skin and more than 4 times as many achieved itch reduction with dupilumab plus TCSs than with TCSs alone. Three-quarters of patients receiving dupilumab at the subsequently approved dosing achieved at least a 75% improvement in overall disease.²⁸ An additional study is being conducted that includes pediatric patients aged 6 months to younger than 6 years (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03346434).

Future Directions in Pediatric AD

Our review summarizes only some of the agents under clinical investigation for use in pediatric AD. Early treatment to establish excellent long-term disease control with aggressive topical regimens or with systemic agents may alter the course of AD and influence the development of comorbidities, though this has not yet been shown in clinical studies. The long-term impact of early treatment, along with many other intriguing issues, will be studied more in the near future.

To have a thriving business in today’s world, a functioning website is crucial to the overall business health. For a medical practice in general, and for its physicians specifically, it is one of the first steps for maintaining a practice. But to grow that practice, it is crucial to take the steps beyond just having a website. Growth requires website opti­mization for search engines, an expanding referral base, and the knowledge to use web tools and social media at your disposal to promote the practice and its physicians. In this roundtable, several marketing experts and web-savvy physicians discuss using available tools to best position and grow a practice.

Choosing a web upgrade

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: Peter, can you start us off by describing your relationship with Heather, and how your practice benefitted from her expertise?

Peter M. Lotze, MD: Sure. I am a urogynecologist in the competitive market of pelvic reconstructive surgery in Houston, Texas. Within that market, my main approach was to reach out to other physicians to refer patients to my practice. It generally would work, but took increasingly greater amounts of time to call these physicians up, write them letters, and maintain relationships. I felt that the large, national practice group that I am in did not have a significant web presence optimized to promote my practice, which makes it difficult for patients seeking your services to find you in their search for a doctor. It is helpful for patients to be able to understand from your website who you are, what you do, and what their experience may be like.

Glaring to me was that a web search specific for me or things that I do, would not produce our company’s results until page 2 or more on Google. This can be devastating for a practice because most people don’t go past the first page, and you can end up with fewer self-referrals, which should be a significant portion of new patients to your practice. I knew I needed guidance; I knew of Heather’s expertise given her exceptional past work building marketing strategies.

Digital go-tos for marketing

Heather Schueppert: Yes, I was pleased to work with Dr. Lotze, and at the time was a marketing consultant for practices such as his. But gone are the days of printed material—brochures, pamphlets, or even billboards—to effectively promote a business, or in this case, a practice. What still withstands the test of time, however, as the number 1 marketing referral source is word of mouth—from your trusted friend, family member, or coworker.

It is now proven that the number 2 most trusted form of advertising, the most persuasive and the most motivating, is online marketing.¹ It is the “digital word of mouth”—the review. Patients are actively online, and a strong digital presence is critical to provide that direct value to retain and grow your patient base.

Continue to: Foundations of private practice reach out...

Foundations of private practice reach out

There are 3 important areas that I consider the foundation of any private practice marketing strategy (TABLE). First is an updated website that is search engine optimized (SEO). You can’t just set it and forget it, it needs to be an updated website. The algorithms for search engines are changing constantly to try to make it as fair and relevant as possible for patients or consumers to find the businesses they are searching for online.

The second area is review management, and for a physician, or even a care center, to do this on your own is a daunting task. It is a critical component, however, to making sure that your reputation out there, that online word of mouth, is as high a star rating as possible.

The third component is local search, which is basically a form of SEO that helps businesses show up in relevant local searches. We are all familiar with the search, “find a restaurant near me,” anything that pushes those search engines to find something local.

Those are what I call the effective triad: that updated website, the review management, and the local search, and all of these are tied together. I think Dr. Lotze and his practice did these effectively well, and I believe that he achieved his goals for the longer term.

Review/reputation management

Dr. Culligan: Brad, is there something that doctors may not know about Healthgrades, and are there opportunities to take full advantage of this physician-rating site?

Brad Bowman, MD: I agree with everything that Dr. Lotze and Heather have said. Start with yourself—what is it that you want to be, the one thing you want to stand for? Get your own marketing, your website right, then, the point is, once you do all that and you are number 1 in SEO, you are still only going to get about 25% of the people looking for you by name to come to your website. The other 75% are going to look at all the other different sites that are out there to provide information to consumers. So the question becomes what do you do with all these other third-party sites? Healthgrades is the most comprehensive and has the highest traffic of the third-party “find a doctor” sites. In 2020, half of all Americans who go to a doctor will use Healthgrades at some point to help select and connect with that doctor.

Physicians have their focus on the quality of the care they provide. Patients, however, focus on the quality of the entire health care experience. Did I get better? How long did I have to wait? Was the office staff helpful? Scarily enough, we still spend more time shopping for a refrigerator or mattress than we do shopping for a doctor. We still tend to think that all doctors are the same. It is the reality of how we have been trained by our insurance companies and by the health care system. That is why getting your marketing right and getting what is it that you want to be known for out there is important, so that you can get the types of patients you want.

Listings management is very important. Make sure that you are findable everywhere. There are services that will do this: Doctor.com, Reputation.com, and many others. They can help you make sure you get all your basic materials right: addresses, phone numbers, your picture. Because 75% of people are going to end up on third-party websites, if your phone number is wrong there, you could lose that patient.

Then the second piece of working with third-party sites is reputation management. Physician reviews are not a bad thing, they are the new word of mouth, as Heather pointed out. Most (80%) of the reviews are going to be positive. The others will be negative, and that is okay. It is important that you get at least 1 or 2 reviews on all the different sites. We know from Healthgrades.com that going from zero reviews to 1 review will increase your call volume by 60%. If you have the choice between 2 physicians and one practice looks like people have been there before, you will go to that one.

You can learn from reviews as well, consumers provide valid feedback. Best practice is to respond to every positive and negative review. Thank them, indicate that you have listened to them, and address any concerns as necessary.

Continue to: Dr. Lotze...

Dr. Lotze: As an example, one of the paramount things that Heather introduced me to was the third party I use to run my website. That company sends a HIPAA-compliant review out to each patient we have seen that day and gives them the opportunity to rate our services and leave comments. If a patient brings up a concern, we can respond immediately, which is important. Patients appreciate feeling that they have been heard. Typically, communicating with a patient will turn the 3-star review into a 5-star as she follows up with the practice.

Ms. Schueppert: Timeliness is important. And just to mention, there certainly is a time commitment to this (and it is a marathon versus a sprint) and there is some financial investment to get it going, but it could truly be detrimental to a practice if you decide not to do anything at all.

Dr. Bowman: Agencies can really help with the time commitment.

Handling bad reviews

Dr. Culligan: What about that person who seems to have it out for you, perhaps giving you multiple bad reviews?

Dr. Bowman: I have seen this before. At Healthgrades, we recently analyzed 8.4 million patient reviews to see what people wrote about.² The first thing they will talk about is quality of care as they see it. Did I get better or not? You can’t “fix” every patient; there will be some that you cannot help. The next thing patients comment on is bedside manner. With negative reviews, you will see more comments about the office staff.²

A single negative review actually helps make the positive ones look more credible. But if you do believe someone is trolling you, we can flag it and will investigate to the best of our ability. (Different sites likely have different editorial policies.) For example, we look at the IP addresses of all reviews, and if multiple reviews are coming from the same location, we would only let one through, overwriting the previous review from that address.

Patients just want to be heard. We have seen people change their views, based on how their review is handled and responded to.

Dr. Lotze: Is there a response by the physician that you think tends to work better in terms of resolving the issue that can minimize a perceived caustic reaction to a patient’s criticism?

Dr. Bowman: First, just like with any stressful situation, take a deep breath and respond when you feel like you can be constructive. When you do respond, be gracious. Thank them for their feedback. Make sure you reference something about their concern: “I understand that you had to wait longer than you would have liked.” Acknowledge the problem they reference, and then just apologize: “I’m sorry we didn’t meet your expectations.” Then, if they waited too long for example, “We have a new system where no one should have to wait more than 30 minutes….” You can respond privately or publically. Generally, public responses are better as it shows other consumers that you are willing to listen and consider their point of view.

Continue to: The next phase at Healthgrades...

The next phase at Healthgrades

Dr. Culligan: Do you see changes to the way physician-rating sites are working now? Are we going to stay status quo over the next 10 years, or do you see frontiers in how your site is going to develop?

Dr. Bowman: For Healthgrades, we rely on quantitative and objective measures, not just the qualitative. We are investing heavily right now in trying to help consumers understand what are the relative volumes of different procedures or different patient types that each individual doctor sees. Orthopedics is an easy example—if you have a knee problem, you want to go to someone who specializes in knees. Our job is to help consumers easily identify, “This is a shoulder doctor, this is a knee doctor, and this is why that matters.”

In the meantime, as a physician, you can always go into our site and state your care philosophy, identifying what is the sort of patient that you like to treat. Transparency is good for everyone, and especially physicians. It helps the right patient show up for you, and it helps you do a better job providing referrals.

Social media: Avoid pitfalls, and use it to your benefit

Dr. Lotze: Branding was one of the things that I was confused about, and Heather really helped me out. As physicians, we put ourselves out there on our websites, which we try to make professional sources of information for patients. But patients often want to see what else they can find out about us, including Healthgrades and social media. I think the thing that is important to know with social media is that it is a place where people learn about you as a person. Your social media should be another avenue of promotion. Whether it is your personal or professional Facebook page, people are going to see those sites. You have an opportunity to promote yourself as a good physician and a good person with a wholesome practice that you want people to come to. If a physician is posting questionable things about themselves on any kind of social media, it could be perceived as inappropriate by the patient. That can impact how patients think of you as a person, and how they are going to grade you. If people lose sight of who you are due to a questionable social media posting, everything else (SEO, the website) can be for naught.

Dr. Culligan: What are the most important social media tools to invest your time in?

Ms. Schueppert: Before anybody jumps into social media, I firmly recommend that you make sure your local search and your Google 3-pack is set up—which is basically a method Google uses to display the top 3 results on its listings page. Then make sure you have a review management system in place. Make sure you have that updated website. Those are the foundational elements. Once you have that going, social media is the next added layer to that digital presence.

I usually recommend LinkedIn. It is huge because you are staying in contact with your colleagues, that business-to-business type of connection. It remains a way for physicians to set themselves up as experts in their level of specialty.

From there, it’s either Instagram or Facebook. If you are serving more of the younger generations, the millennials and younger, then Instagram is the way to go. If you are focusing on your 40+, 50+, they are going to be far more on Facebook.

Continue to: Dr. Lotze...

Dr. Lotze: For me, a Facebook page was a great place to start. The cost of those Google ads—the first things we see at the top of a Google search in their own separate box—is significant. If a practice has that kind of money to invest, great; it is an instant way to be first on the page during a search. But there are more cost-effective ways of doing that, especially as you are getting your name out. Facebook provides, at a smaller cost, promotion of whatever it is that you are seeking to promote. You can find people within a certain zip code, for instance, and use a Facebook ad campaign that can drive people to your Facebook page—which should have both routinely updated new posts and a link to your website. The posts should be interesting topics relevant to the patients you wish to treat (avoiding personal stories or controversial discussions). You can put a post together, or you can have a third-party service do this. People who follow your page will get reminders of you and your practice with each new post. As your page followers increase, your Facebook rank will improve, and your page will more likely be discovered by Facebook searches for your services. With an added link to your office practice website, those patients go straight to your site without getting lost in the noise of Google search results.

For Instagram, a short video or an interesting picture, along with a brief statement, are the essentials. You can add a single link. Marketing here is by direct messaging or having patients going to your website through a link. Instagram, like Facebook, offers analytics to help show you what your audience likes to read about, improving the quality of your posts and increasing number of followers.

YouTube is the number 2 search engine behind Google. A Google search for your field of medicine may be filled with pages of competitors. However, YouTube has a much lower volume of competing practices, making it easier for patients to find you. The only downside to YouTube is that it will list your video along with other competing videos, which can draw attention away from your practice.

If you want to promote your website or practice with video, using a company such as Vimeo is a better choice compared with YouTube, as YouTube gets credit for video views—which improves YouTube’s SEO and not your own website. Vimeo allows for your website to get credit each time the video is watched. Regardless of where you place your videos, make them short and to the point, with links to your website. Videos only need to be long enough to get your message across and stimulate interest in your practice.

If you can have a blog on your website, it also will help with SEO. What a search engine like Google wants to see is that a patient is on your web page and looking at something for at least 60 seconds. If so, the website is deemed to have information that is relevant, improving your SEO ranking.

Finally, Twitter also can be used for getting messaging out and for branding. The problem with it is that many people go to Twitter to follow a Hollywood celebrity, a sports star, or are looking for mass communication. There is less interest on Twitter for physician outreach.

Continue to: Measuring ROI...

Dr. Culligan: What’s the best way to track your return on investment?

Dr. Lotze: First for me was to find out what didn’t work in the office and fix that before really promoting my practice. It’s about the global experience for a patient, as Brad mentioned. As a marketing expert, Heather met with me to understand my goals. She then called my office as a patient to set up an appointment and went through that entire office experience. We identified issues needing improvement.

The next step was to develop a working relationship with my webmaster—someone who can help manage Internet image and SEO. Together, you will develop goals for what the SEO should promote specific to your practice. Once a good SEO program is in place, your website’s ranking will go up—although it can take a minimum of 6 months to see a significant increase. To help understand your website’s performance, your webmaster should provide you with reports on your site’s analytics.

As you go through this process, it is great to have a marketing expert to be the point person. You will work closely together for a while, but eventually you can back off over time. The time and expense you invest on the front end have huge rewards on the back end. Currently, I still spend a reasonable amount of money every month. I have a high self-referral base because of these efforts, however, which results in more patient surgeries and easily covers my expenses. It is money well invested. My website traffic increased by 268% over 2 years (FIGURE). I’ll propose that currently more than half of my patients are self-referrals due to online marketing.

Ms. Schueppert: The only thing I would add is training your front staff. They are checking people in, taking appointments, checking your patients out. Have them be mindful that there are campaigns going on, whether it is a social media push, or a new video that went on the website. They can ask, “How did you hear about us?” when a new patient calls.

Dr. Bowman: Unless you are a large university hospital, where the analytics get significantly more advanced in terms of measuring return on investment (ROI), I think you should just be looking at your schedule and looking at your monthly billings and seeing how they change over time. You can calculate how much a new patient is worth because you can figure out how many patients you have and how much you bill and what your profits are.

Dr. Culligan: For those of us who are hospital employees, you can try to convince the hospital that you can do a detailed ROI analysis, or you can just look at it like (say it’s $3,000 per month), how many surgeries does this project have to generate before the hospital makes that back? The answer is a fraction of 1 case.

Thank you to all of you for your expertise on this roundtable. 

To have a thriving business in today’s world, a functioning website is crucial to the overall business health. For a medical practice in general, and for its physicians specifically, it is one of the first steps for maintaining a practice. But to grow that practice, it is crucial to take the steps beyond just having a website. Growth requires website opti­mization for search engines, an expanding referral base, and the knowledge to use web tools and social media at your disposal to promote the practice and its physicians. In this roundtable, several marketing experts and web-savvy physicians discuss using available tools to best position and grow a practice.

Choosing a web upgrade

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: Peter, can you start us off by describing your relationship with Heather, and how your practice benefitted from her expertise?

Peter M. Lotze, MD: Sure. I am a urogynecologist in the competitive market of pelvic reconstructive surgery in Houston, Texas. Within that market, my main approach was to reach out to other physicians to refer patients to my practice. It generally would work, but took increasingly greater amounts of time to call these physicians up, write them letters, and maintain relationships. I felt that the large, national practice group that I am in did not have a significant web presence optimized to promote my practice, which makes it difficult for patients seeking your services to find you in their search for a doctor. It is helpful for patients to be able to understand from your website who you are, what you do, and what their experience may be like.

Glaring to me was that a web search specific for me or things that I do, would not produce our company’s results until page 2 or more on Google. This can be devastating for a practice because most people don’t go past the first page, and you can end up with fewer self-referrals, which should be a significant portion of new patients to your practice. I knew I needed guidance; I knew of Heather’s expertise given her exceptional past work building marketing strategies.

Digital go-tos for marketing

Heather Schueppert: Yes, I was pleased to work with Dr. Lotze, and at the time was a marketing consultant for practices such as his. But gone are the days of printed material—brochures, pamphlets, or even billboards—to effectively promote a business, or in this case, a practice. What still withstands the test of time, however, as the number 1 marketing referral source is word of mouth—from your trusted friend, family member, or coworker.

It is now proven that the number 2 most trusted form of advertising, the most persuasive and the most motivating, is online marketing.¹ It is the “digital word of mouth”—the review. Patients are actively online, and a strong digital presence is critical to provide that direct value to retain and grow your patient base.

Continue to: Foundations of private practice reach out...

Foundations of private practice reach out

There are 3 important areas that I consider the foundation of any private practice marketing strategy (TABLE). First is an updated website that is search engine optimized (SEO). You can’t just set it and forget it, it needs to be an updated website. The algorithms for search engines are changing constantly to try to make it as fair and relevant as possible for patients or consumers to find the businesses they are searching for online.

The second area is review management, and for a physician, or even a care center, to do this on your own is a daunting task. It is a critical component, however, to making sure that your reputation out there, that online word of mouth, is as high a star rating as possible.

The third component is local search, which is basically a form of SEO that helps businesses show up in relevant local searches. We are all familiar with the search, “find a restaurant near me,” anything that pushes those search engines to find something local.

Those are what I call the effective triad: that updated website, the review management, and the local search, and all of these are tied together. I think Dr. Lotze and his practice did these effectively well, and I believe that he achieved his goals for the longer term.

Review/reputation management

Dr. Culligan: Brad, is there something that doctors may not know about Healthgrades, and are there opportunities to take full advantage of this physician-rating site?

Brad Bowman, MD: I agree with everything that Dr. Lotze and Heather have said. Start with yourself—what is it that you want to be, the one thing you want to stand for? Get your own marketing, your website right, then, the point is, once you do all that and you are number 1 in SEO, you are still only going to get about 25% of the people looking for you by name to come to your website. The other 75% are going to look at all the other different sites that are out there to provide information to consumers. So the question becomes what do you do with all these other third-party sites? Healthgrades is the most comprehensive and has the highest traffic of the third-party “find a doctor” sites. In 2020, half of all Americans who go to a doctor will use Healthgrades at some point to help select and connect with that doctor.

Physicians have their focus on the quality of the care they provide. Patients, however, focus on the quality of the entire health care experience. Did I get better? How long did I have to wait? Was the office staff helpful? Scarily enough, we still spend more time shopping for a refrigerator or mattress than we do shopping for a doctor. We still tend to think that all doctors are the same. It is the reality of how we have been trained by our insurance companies and by the health care system. That is why getting your marketing right and getting what is it that you want to be known for out there is important, so that you can get the types of patients you want.

Listings management is very important. Make sure that you are findable everywhere. There are services that will do this: Doctor.com, Reputation.com, and many others. They can help you make sure you get all your basic materials right: addresses, phone numbers, your picture. Because 75% of people are going to end up on third-party websites, if your phone number is wrong there, you could lose that patient.

Then the second piece of working with third-party sites is reputation management. Physician reviews are not a bad thing, they are the new word of mouth, as Heather pointed out. Most (80%) of the reviews are going to be positive. The others will be negative, and that is okay. It is important that you get at least 1 or 2 reviews on all the different sites. We know from Healthgrades.com that going from zero reviews to 1 review will increase your call volume by 60%. If you have the choice between 2 physicians and one practice looks like people have been there before, you will go to that one.

You can learn from reviews as well, consumers provide valid feedback. Best practice is to respond to every positive and negative review. Thank them, indicate that you have listened to them, and address any concerns as necessary.

Continue to: Dr. Lotze...

Dr. Lotze: As an example, one of the paramount things that Heather introduced me to was the third party I use to run my website. That company sends a HIPAA-compliant review out to each patient we have seen that day and gives them the opportunity to rate our services and leave comments. If a patient brings up a concern, we can respond immediately, which is important. Patients appreciate feeling that they have been heard. Typically, communicating with a patient will turn the 3-star review into a 5-star as she follows up with the practice.

Ms. Schueppert: Timeliness is important. And just to mention, there certainly is a time commitment to this (and it is a marathon versus a sprint) and there is some financial investment to get it going, but it could truly be detrimental to a practice if you decide not to do anything at all.

Dr. Bowman: Agencies can really help with the time commitment.

Handling bad reviews

Dr. Culligan: What about that person who seems to have it out for you, perhaps giving you multiple bad reviews?

Dr. Bowman: I have seen this before. At Healthgrades, we recently analyzed 8.4 million patient reviews to see what people wrote about.² The first thing they will talk about is quality of care as they see it. Did I get better or not? You can’t “fix” every patient; there will be some that you cannot help. The next thing patients comment on is bedside manner. With negative reviews, you will see more comments about the office staff.²

A single negative review actually helps make the positive ones look more credible. But if you do believe someone is trolling you, we can flag it and will investigate to the best of our ability. (Different sites likely have different editorial policies.) For example, we look at the IP addresses of all reviews, and if multiple reviews are coming from the same location, we would only let one through, overwriting the previous review from that address.

Patients just want to be heard. We have seen people change their views, based on how their review is handled and responded to.

Dr. Lotze: Is there a response by the physician that you think tends to work better in terms of resolving the issue that can minimize a perceived caustic reaction to a patient’s criticism?

Dr. Bowman: First, just like with any stressful situation, take a deep breath and respond when you feel like you can be constructive. When you do respond, be gracious. Thank them for their feedback. Make sure you reference something about their concern: “I understand that you had to wait longer than you would have liked.” Acknowledge the problem they reference, and then just apologize: “I’m sorry we didn’t meet your expectations.” Then, if they waited too long for example, “We have a new system where no one should have to wait more than 30 minutes….” You can respond privately or publically. Generally, public responses are better as it shows other consumers that you are willing to listen and consider their point of view.

Continue to: The next phase at Healthgrades...

The next phase at Healthgrades

Dr. Culligan: Do you see changes to the way physician-rating sites are working now? Are we going to stay status quo over the next 10 years, or do you see frontiers in how your site is going to develop?

Dr. Bowman: For Healthgrades, we rely on quantitative and objective measures, not just the qualitative. We are investing heavily right now in trying to help consumers understand what are the relative volumes of different procedures or different patient types that each individual doctor sees. Orthopedics is an easy example—if you have a knee problem, you want to go to someone who specializes in knees. Our job is to help consumers easily identify, “This is a shoulder doctor, this is a knee doctor, and this is why that matters.”

In the meantime, as a physician, you can always go into our site and state your care philosophy, identifying what is the sort of patient that you like to treat. Transparency is good for everyone, and especially physicians. It helps the right patient show up for you, and it helps you do a better job providing referrals.

Social media: Avoid pitfalls, and use it to your benefit

Dr. Lotze: Branding was one of the things that I was confused about, and Heather really helped me out. As physicians, we put ourselves out there on our websites, which we try to make professional sources of information for patients. But patients often want to see what else they can find out about us, including Healthgrades and social media. I think the thing that is important to know with social media is that it is a place where people learn about you as a person. Your social media should be another avenue of promotion. Whether it is your personal or professional Facebook page, people are going to see those sites. You have an opportunity to promote yourself as a good physician and a good person with a wholesome practice that you want people to come to. If a physician is posting questionable things about themselves on any kind of social media, it could be perceived as inappropriate by the patient. That can impact how patients think of you as a person, and how they are going to grade you. If people lose sight of who you are due to a questionable social media posting, everything else (SEO, the website) can be for naught.

Dr. Culligan: What are the most important social media tools to invest your time in?

Ms. Schueppert: Before anybody jumps into social media, I firmly recommend that you make sure your local search and your Google 3-pack is set up—which is basically a method Google uses to display the top 3 results on its listings page. Then make sure you have a review management system in place. Make sure you have that updated website. Those are the foundational elements. Once you have that going, social media is the next added layer to that digital presence.

I usually recommend LinkedIn. It is huge because you are staying in contact with your colleagues, that business-to-business type of connection. It remains a way for physicians to set themselves up as experts in their level of specialty.

From there, it’s either Instagram or Facebook. If you are serving more of the younger generations, the millennials and younger, then Instagram is the way to go. If you are focusing on your 40+, 50+, they are going to be far more on Facebook.

Continue to: Dr. Lotze...

Dr. Lotze: For me, a Facebook page was a great place to start. The cost of those Google ads—the first things we see at the top of a Google search in their own separate box—is significant. If a practice has that kind of money to invest, great; it is an instant way to be first on the page during a search. But there are more cost-effective ways of doing that, especially as you are getting your name out. Facebook provides, at a smaller cost, promotion of whatever it is that you are seeking to promote. You can find people within a certain zip code, for instance, and use a Facebook ad campaign that can drive people to your Facebook page—which should have both routinely updated new posts and a link to your website. The posts should be interesting topics relevant to the patients you wish to treat (avoiding personal stories or controversial discussions). You can put a post together, or you can have a third-party service do this. People who follow your page will get reminders of you and your practice with each new post. As your page followers increase, your Facebook rank will improve, and your page will more likely be discovered by Facebook searches for your services. With an added link to your office practice website, those patients go straight to your site without getting lost in the noise of Google search results.

For Instagram, a short video or an interesting picture, along with a brief statement, are the essentials. You can add a single link. Marketing here is by direct messaging or having patients going to your website through a link. Instagram, like Facebook, offers analytics to help show you what your audience likes to read about, improving the quality of your posts and increasing number of followers.

YouTube is the number 2 search engine behind Google. A Google search for your field of medicine may be filled with pages of competitors. However, YouTube has a much lower volume of competing practices, making it easier for patients to find you. The only downside to YouTube is that it will list your video along with other competing videos, which can draw attention away from your practice.

If you want to promote your website or practice with video, using a company such as Vimeo is a better choice compared with YouTube, as YouTube gets credit for video views—which improves YouTube’s SEO and not your own website. Vimeo allows for your website to get credit each time the video is watched. Regardless of where you place your videos, make them short and to the point, with links to your website. Videos only need to be long enough to get your message across and stimulate interest in your practice.

If you can have a blog on your website, it also will help with SEO. What a search engine like Google wants to see is that a patient is on your web page and looking at something for at least 60 seconds. If so, the website is deemed to have information that is relevant, improving your SEO ranking.

Finally, Twitter also can be used for getting messaging out and for branding. The problem with it is that many people go to Twitter to follow a Hollywood celebrity, a sports star, or are looking for mass communication. There is less interest on Twitter for physician outreach.

Continue to: Measuring ROI...

Dr. Culligan: What’s the best way to track your return on investment?

Dr. Lotze: First for me was to find out what didn’t work in the office and fix that before really promoting my practice. It’s about the global experience for a patient, as Brad mentioned. As a marketing expert, Heather met with me to understand my goals. She then called my office as a patient to set up an appointment and went through that entire office experience. We identified issues needing improvement.

The next step was to develop a working relationship with my webmaster—someone who can help manage Internet image and SEO. Together, you will develop goals for what the SEO should promote specific to your practice. Once a good SEO program is in place, your website’s ranking will go up—although it can take a minimum of 6 months to see a significant increase. To help understand your website’s performance, your webmaster should provide you with reports on your site’s analytics.

As you go through this process, it is great to have a marketing expert to be the point person. You will work closely together for a while, but eventually you can back off over time. The time and expense you invest on the front end have huge rewards on the back end. Currently, I still spend a reasonable amount of money every month. I have a high self-referral base because of these efforts, however, which results in more patient surgeries and easily covers my expenses. It is money well invested. My website traffic increased by 268% over 2 years (FIGURE). I’ll propose that currently more than half of my patients are self-referrals due to online marketing.

Ms. Schueppert: The only thing I would add is training your front staff. They are checking people in, taking appointments, checking your patients out. Have them be mindful that there are campaigns going on, whether it is a social media push, or a new video that went on the website. They can ask, “How did you hear about us?” when a new patient calls.

Dr. Bowman: Unless you are a large university hospital, where the analytics get significantly more advanced in terms of measuring return on investment (ROI), I think you should just be looking at your schedule and looking at your monthly billings and seeing how they change over time. You can calculate how much a new patient is worth because you can figure out how many patients you have and how much you bill and what your profits are.

Dr. Culligan: For those of us who are hospital employees, you can try to convince the hospital that you can do a detailed ROI analysis, or you can just look at it like (say it’s $3,000 per month), how many surgeries does this project have to generate before the hospital makes that back? The answer is a fraction of 1 case.

Thank you to all of you for your expertise on this roundtable. 

To have a thriving business in today’s world, a functioning website is crucial to the overall business health. For a medical practice in general, and for its physicians specifically, it is one of the first steps for maintaining a practice. But to grow that practice, it is crucial to take the steps beyond just having a website. Growth requires website opti­mization for search engines, an expanding referral base, and the knowledge to use web tools and social media at your disposal to promote the practice and its physicians. In this roundtable, several marketing experts and web-savvy physicians discuss using available tools to best position and grow a practice.

Choosing a web upgrade

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: Peter, can you start us off by describing your relationship with Heather, and how your practice benefitted from her expertise?

Peter M. Lotze, MD: Sure. I am a urogynecologist in the competitive market of pelvic reconstructive surgery in Houston, Texas. Within that market, my main approach was to reach out to other physicians to refer patients to my practice. It generally would work, but took increasingly greater amounts of time to call these physicians up, write them letters, and maintain relationships. I felt that the large, national practice group that I am in did not have a significant web presence optimized to promote my practice, which makes it difficult for patients seeking your services to find you in their search for a doctor. It is helpful for patients to be able to understand from your website who you are, what you do, and what their experience may be like.

Glaring to me was that a web search specific for me or things that I do, would not produce our company’s results until page 2 or more on Google. This can be devastating for a practice because most people don’t go past the first page, and you can end up with fewer self-referrals, which should be a significant portion of new patients to your practice. I knew I needed guidance; I knew of Heather’s expertise given her exceptional past work building marketing strategies.

Digital go-tos for marketing

Heather Schueppert: Yes, I was pleased to work with Dr. Lotze, and at the time was a marketing consultant for practices such as his. But gone are the days of printed material—brochures, pamphlets, or even billboards—to effectively promote a business, or in this case, a practice. What still withstands the test of time, however, as the number 1 marketing referral source is word of mouth—from your trusted friend, family member, or coworker.

It is now proven that the number 2 most trusted form of advertising, the most persuasive and the most motivating, is online marketing.¹ It is the “digital word of mouth”—the review. Patients are actively online, and a strong digital presence is critical to provide that direct value to retain and grow your patient base.

Continue to: Foundations of private practice reach out...

Foundations of private practice reach out

There are 3 important areas that I consider the foundation of any private practice marketing strategy (TABLE). First is an updated website that is search engine optimized (SEO). You can’t just set it and forget it, it needs to be an updated website. The algorithms for search engines are changing constantly to try to make it as fair and relevant as possible for patients or consumers to find the businesses they are searching for online.

The second area is review management, and for a physician, or even a care center, to do this on your own is a daunting task. It is a critical component, however, to making sure that your reputation out there, that online word of mouth, is as high a star rating as possible.

The third component is local search, which is basically a form of SEO that helps businesses show up in relevant local searches. We are all familiar with the search, “find a restaurant near me,” anything that pushes those search engines to find something local.

Those are what I call the effective triad: that updated website, the review management, and the local search, and all of these are tied together. I think Dr. Lotze and his practice did these effectively well, and I believe that he achieved his goals for the longer term.

Review/reputation management

Dr. Culligan: Brad, is there something that doctors may not know about Healthgrades, and are there opportunities to take full advantage of this physician-rating site?

Brad Bowman, MD: I agree with everything that Dr. Lotze and Heather have said. Start with yourself—what is it that you want to be, the one thing you want to stand for? Get your own marketing, your website right, then, the point is, once you do all that and you are number 1 in SEO, you are still only going to get about 25% of the people looking for you by name to come to your website. The other 75% are going to look at all the other different sites that are out there to provide information to consumers. So the question becomes what do you do with all these other third-party sites? Healthgrades is the most comprehensive and has the highest traffic of the third-party “find a doctor” sites. In 2020, half of all Americans who go to a doctor will use Healthgrades at some point to help select and connect with that doctor.

Physicians have their focus on the quality of the care they provide. Patients, however, focus on the quality of the entire health care experience. Did I get better? How long did I have to wait? Was the office staff helpful? Scarily enough, we still spend more time shopping for a refrigerator or mattress than we do shopping for a doctor. We still tend to think that all doctors are the same. It is the reality of how we have been trained by our insurance companies and by the health care system. That is why getting your marketing right and getting what is it that you want to be known for out there is important, so that you can get the types of patients you want.

Listings management is very important. Make sure that you are findable everywhere. There are services that will do this: Doctor.com, Reputation.com, and many others. They can help you make sure you get all your basic materials right: addresses, phone numbers, your picture. Because 75% of people are going to end up on third-party websites, if your phone number is wrong there, you could lose that patient.

Then the second piece of working with third-party sites is reputation management. Physician reviews are not a bad thing, they are the new word of mouth, as Heather pointed out. Most (80%) of the reviews are going to be positive. The others will be negative, and that is okay. It is important that you get at least 1 or 2 reviews on all the different sites. We know from Healthgrades.com that going from zero reviews to 1 review will increase your call volume by 60%. If you have the choice between 2 physicians and one practice looks like people have been there before, you will go to that one.

You can learn from reviews as well, consumers provide valid feedback. Best practice is to respond to every positive and negative review. Thank them, indicate that you have listened to them, and address any concerns as necessary.

Continue to: Dr. Lotze...

Dr. Lotze: As an example, one of the paramount things that Heather introduced me to was the third party I use to run my website. That company sends a HIPAA-compliant review out to each patient we have seen that day and gives them the opportunity to rate our services and leave comments. If a patient brings up a concern, we can respond immediately, which is important. Patients appreciate feeling that they have been heard. Typically, communicating with a patient will turn the 3-star review into a 5-star as she follows up with the practice.

Ms. Schueppert: Timeliness is important. And just to mention, there certainly is a time commitment to this (and it is a marathon versus a sprint) and there is some financial investment to get it going, but it could truly be detrimental to a practice if you decide not to do anything at all.

Dr. Bowman: Agencies can really help with the time commitment.

Handling bad reviews

Dr. Culligan: What about that person who seems to have it out for you, perhaps giving you multiple bad reviews?

Dr. Bowman: I have seen this before. At Healthgrades, we recently analyzed 8.4 million patient reviews to see what people wrote about.² The first thing they will talk about is quality of care as they see it. Did I get better or not? You can’t “fix” every patient; there will be some that you cannot help. The next thing patients comment on is bedside manner. With negative reviews, you will see more comments about the office staff.²

A single negative review actually helps make the positive ones look more credible. But if you do believe someone is trolling you, we can flag it and will investigate to the best of our ability. (Different sites likely have different editorial policies.) For example, we look at the IP addresses of all reviews, and if multiple reviews are coming from the same location, we would only let one through, overwriting the previous review from that address.

Patients just want to be heard. We have seen people change their views, based on how their review is handled and responded to.

Dr. Lotze: Is there a response by the physician that you think tends to work better in terms of resolving the issue that can minimize a perceived caustic reaction to a patient’s criticism?

Dr. Bowman: First, just like with any stressful situation, take a deep breath and respond when you feel like you can be constructive. When you do respond, be gracious. Thank them for their feedback. Make sure you reference something about their concern: “I understand that you had to wait longer than you would have liked.” Acknowledge the problem they reference, and then just apologize: “I’m sorry we didn’t meet your expectations.” Then, if they waited too long for example, “We have a new system where no one should have to wait more than 30 minutes….” You can respond privately or publically. Generally, public responses are better as it shows other consumers that you are willing to listen and consider their point of view.

Continue to: The next phase at Healthgrades...

The next phase at Healthgrades

Dr. Culligan: Do you see changes to the way physician-rating sites are working now? Are we going to stay status quo over the next 10 years, or do you see frontiers in how your site is going to develop?

Dr. Bowman: For Healthgrades, we rely on quantitative and objective measures, not just the qualitative. We are investing heavily right now in trying to help consumers understand what are the relative volumes of different procedures or different patient types that each individual doctor sees. Orthopedics is an easy example—if you have a knee problem, you want to go to someone who specializes in knees. Our job is to help consumers easily identify, “This is a shoulder doctor, this is a knee doctor, and this is why that matters.”

In the meantime, as a physician, you can always go into our site and state your care philosophy, identifying what is the sort of patient that you like to treat. Transparency is good for everyone, and especially physicians. It helps the right patient show up for you, and it helps you do a better job providing referrals.

Social media: Avoid pitfalls, and use it to your benefit

Dr. Lotze: Branding was one of the things that I was confused about, and Heather really helped me out. As physicians, we put ourselves out there on our websites, which we try to make professional sources of information for patients. But patients often want to see what else they can find out about us, including Healthgrades and social media. I think the thing that is important to know with social media is that it is a place where people learn about you as a person. Your social media should be another avenue of promotion. Whether it is your personal or professional Facebook page, people are going to see those sites. You have an opportunity to promote yourself as a good physician and a good person with a wholesome practice that you want people to come to. If a physician is posting questionable things about themselves on any kind of social media, it could be perceived as inappropriate by the patient. That can impact how patients think of you as a person, and how they are going to grade you. If people lose sight of who you are due to a questionable social media posting, everything else (SEO, the website) can be for naught.

Dr. Culligan: What are the most important social media tools to invest your time in?

Ms. Schueppert: Before anybody jumps into social media, I firmly recommend that you make sure your local search and your Google 3-pack is set up—which is basically a method Google uses to display the top 3 results on its listings page. Then make sure you have a review management system in place. Make sure you have that updated website. Those are the foundational elements. Once you have that going, social media is the next added layer to that digital presence.

I usually recommend LinkedIn. It is huge because you are staying in contact with your colleagues, that business-to-business type of connection. It remains a way for physicians to set themselves up as experts in their level of specialty.

From there, it’s either Instagram or Facebook. If you are serving more of the younger generations, the millennials and younger, then Instagram is the way to go. If you are focusing on your 40+, 50+, they are going to be far more on Facebook.

Continue to: Dr. Lotze...

Dr. Lotze: For me, a Facebook page was a great place to start. The cost of those Google ads—the first things we see at the top of a Google search in their own separate box—is significant. If a practice has that kind of money to invest, great; it is an instant way to be first on the page during a search. But there are more cost-effective ways of doing that, especially as you are getting your name out. Facebook provides, at a smaller cost, promotion of whatever it is that you are seeking to promote. You can find people within a certain zip code, for instance, and use a Facebook ad campaign that can drive people to your Facebook page—which should have both routinely updated new posts and a link to your website. The posts should be interesting topics relevant to the patients you wish to treat (avoiding personal stories or controversial discussions). You can put a post together, or you can have a third-party service do this. People who follow your page will get reminders of you and your practice with each new post. As your page followers increase, your Facebook rank will improve, and your page will more likely be discovered by Facebook searches for your services. With an added link to your office practice website, those patients go straight to your site without getting lost in the noise of Google search results.

For Instagram, a short video or an interesting picture, along with a brief statement, are the essentials. You can add a single link. Marketing here is by direct messaging or having patients going to your website through a link. Instagram, like Facebook, offers analytics to help show you what your audience likes to read about, improving the quality of your posts and increasing number of followers.

YouTube is the number 2 search engine behind Google. A Google search for your field of medicine may be filled with pages of competitors. However, YouTube has a much lower volume of competing practices, making it easier for patients to find you. The only downside to YouTube is that it will list your video along with other competing videos, which can draw attention away from your practice.

If you want to promote your website or practice with video, using a company such as Vimeo is a better choice compared with YouTube, as YouTube gets credit for video views—which improves YouTube’s SEO and not your own website. Vimeo allows for your website to get credit each time the video is watched. Regardless of where you place your videos, make them short and to the point, with links to your website. Videos only need to be long enough to get your message across and stimulate interest in your practice.

If you can have a blog on your website, it also will help with SEO. What a search engine like Google wants to see is that a patient is on your web page and looking at something for at least 60 seconds. If so, the website is deemed to have information that is relevant, improving your SEO ranking.

Finally, Twitter also can be used for getting messaging out and for branding. The problem with it is that many people go to Twitter to follow a Hollywood celebrity, a sports star, or are looking for mass communication. There is less interest on Twitter for physician outreach.

Continue to: Measuring ROI...

Dr. Culligan: What’s the best way to track your return on investment?

Dr. Lotze: First for me was to find out what didn’t work in the office and fix that before really promoting my practice. It’s about the global experience for a patient, as Brad mentioned. As a marketing expert, Heather met with me to understand my goals. She then called my office as a patient to set up an appointment and went through that entire office experience. We identified issues needing improvement.

The next step was to develop a working relationship with my webmaster—someone who can help manage Internet image and SEO. Together, you will develop goals for what the SEO should promote specific to your practice. Once a good SEO program is in place, your website’s ranking will go up—although it can take a minimum of 6 months to see a significant increase. To help understand your website’s performance, your webmaster should provide you with reports on your site’s analytics.

As you go through this process, it is great to have a marketing expert to be the point person. You will work closely together for a while, but eventually you can back off over time. The time and expense you invest on the front end have huge rewards on the back end. Currently, I still spend a reasonable amount of money every month. I have a high self-referral base because of these efforts, however, which results in more patient surgeries and easily covers my expenses. It is money well invested. My website traffic increased by 268% over 2 years (FIGURE). I’ll propose that currently more than half of my patients are self-referrals due to online marketing.

Ms. Schueppert: The only thing I would add is training your front staff. They are checking people in, taking appointments, checking your patients out. Have them be mindful that there are campaigns going on, whether it is a social media push, or a new video that went on the website. They can ask, “How did you hear about us?” when a new patient calls.

Dr. Bowman: Unless you are a large university hospital, where the analytics get significantly more advanced in terms of measuring return on investment (ROI), I think you should just be looking at your schedule and looking at your monthly billings and seeing how they change over time. You can calculate how much a new patient is worth because you can figure out how many patients you have and how much you bill and what your profits are.

Dr. Culligan: For those of us who are hospital employees, you can try to convince the hospital that you can do a detailed ROI analysis, or you can just look at it like (say it’s $3,000 per month), how many surgeries does this project have to generate before the hospital makes that back? The answer is a fraction of 1 case.

Thank you to all of you for your expertise on this roundtable. 

The emergence of the coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19) in December 2019, has resulted in a global pandemic that has challenged the medical community and will continue to represent a public health emergency for the next several months.¹ It has rapidly spread globally, infecting many individuals in an unprecedented rate of infection and worldwide reach. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID-19 as a pandemic. While the majority of infected individuals are asymptomatic or develop only mild symptoms, some have an unfortunate clinical course resulting in multi-organ failure and death.²

It is accepted that the virus mainly spreads during close contact and via respiratory droplets.³ The average time from infection to onset of symptoms ranges from 2 to 14 days, with an average of 5 days.⁴ Recommended measures to prevent the spread of the infection include social distancing (at least 6 feet from others), meticulous hand hygiene, and wearing a mask covering the mouth and nose when in public.⁵ Aiming to mitigate the risk of viral dissemination for patients and health care providers, and to preserve hospital resources, all nonessential medical interventions were initially suspended. Recently, the American College of Surgeons in a joint statement with 9 women’s health care societies have provided recommendations on how to resume clinical activities as we recover from the pandemic.⁶

As we reinitiate clinical activities, gynecologists have been alerted of the potential risk of viral dissemination during gynecologic minimally invasive surgical procedures due to the presence of the virus in blood, stool, and the potential risk of aerosolization of the virus, especially when using smoke-generating devices.^7,8 This risk is not limited to intubation and extubation of the airway during anesthesia; the risk also presents itself during other aerosol-generating procedures, such as laparoscopy or robotic surgery.^9,10

Hysteroscopy is considered the gold standard procedure for the diagnosis and management of intrauterine pathologies.¹¹ It is frequently performed in an office setting without the use of anesthesia.^11,12 It is usually well tolerated, with only a few patients reporting discomfort.¹² It allows for immediate treatment (using the “see and treat” approach) while avoiding not only the risk of anesthesia, as stated, but also the need for intubation—which has a high risk of droplet contamination in COVID-19–infected individuals.¹³

Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures?

The novel and rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic present many challenges to the gynecologist. Significant concerns have been raised regarding potential risk of viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery due to aerosolization of viral particles and the presence of the virus in blood and the gastrointestinal tract of infected patients.⁷ Diagnostic, and some simple, hysteroscopic procedures are commonly performed in an outpatient setting, with the patient awake. Complex hysteroscopic interventions, however, are generally performed in the operating room, typically with the use of general anesthesia. Hysteroscopy has the theoretical risks of viral dissemination when performed in COVID-19–positive patients. Two important questions must be addressed to better understand the potential risk of COVID-19 viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures.

Continue to: 1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?...

1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?

Recent studies have confirmed the presence of viral particles in urine, feces, blood, and tears in addition to the respiratory tract in patients infected with COVID-19.^3,14,15 The presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the female genital system is currently unknown. Previous studies, of other epidemic viral infections, have demonstrated the presence of the virus in the female genital tract in affected patients of Zika virus and Ebola.^16,17 However, 2 recent studies have failed to demonstrate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the vaginal fluid of pregnant¹⁴ and not pregnant¹⁸ women with severe COVID-19 infection.

2. Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopy if using electrosurgery?

There are significant concerns with possible risk of COVID-19 transmission to health care providers in direct contact with infected patients during minimally invasive gynecologic procedures due to direct contamination and aerosolization of the virus.^10,19 Current data on COVID-19 transmission during surgery are limited. However, it is important to recognize that viral aerosolization has been documented with other viral diseases, such as human papillomavirus and hepatitis B.²⁰ A recent report called for awareness in the surgical community about the potential risks of COVID-19 viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery. Among other recommendations, international experts advised minimizing the use of electrosurgery to reduce the creation of surgical plume, decreasing the pneumoperitoneum pressure to minimum levels, and using suction devices in a closed system.²¹ Although these preventive measures apply to laparoscopic surgery, it is important to consider that hysteroscopy is performed in a unique environment.

During hysteroscopy the uterine cavity is distended with a liquid medium (normal saline or electrolyte-free solutions); this is opposed to gynecologic laparoscopy, in which the peritoneal cavity is distended with carbon dioxide.²² The smoke produced with the use of hysteroscopic electrosurgical instruments generates bubbles that are immediately cooled down to the temperature of the distention media and subsequently dissolve into it. Therefore, there are no bubbles generated during hysteroscopic surgery that are subsequently released into the air. This results in a low risk for viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures. Nevertheless, the necessary precautions to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during hysteroscopic intervention are extremely important.

Recommendations for hysteroscopic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic

We provide our overall recommendations for hysteroscopy, as well as those specific to the office and hospital setting.

Recommendations: General

Limit hysteroscopic procedures to COVID-19–negative patients and to those patients in whom delaying the procedure could result in adverse clinical outcomes.²³

Universally screen for potential COVID-19 infection. When possible, a phone interview to triage patients based on their symptoms and infection exposure status should take place before the patient arrives to the health care center. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection who require immediate evaluation should be directed to COVID-19–designated emergency areas.

Universally test for SARS-CoV-2 before procedures performed in the operating room (OR). Using nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of viral RNA, employing molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), within 48 to 72 hours prior to all OR hysteroscopic procedures is strongly recommended. Adopting this testing strategy will aid to identify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2‒infected patients, allowing to defer the procedure, if possible, among patients testing positive. If tests are limited, testing only patients scheduled for hysteroscopic procedures in which general or regional anesthesia will be required is acceptable.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients undergoing in-office hysteroscopic diagnostic or minor operative procedures without the use of anesthesia is not required.

Limit the presence of a companion. It is understood that visitor policies may vary at the discretion of each institution’s guidelines. Children and individuals over the age of 60 years should not be granted access to the center. Companions will be subjected to the same screening criteria as patients.

Provide for social distancing and other precautionary measures. If more than one patient is scheduled to be at the facility at the same time, ensure that the facility provides adequate space to allow the appropriate social distancing recommendations between patients. Hand sanitizers and facemasks should be available for patients and companions.

Provide PPE for clinicians. All health care providers in close contact with the patient must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes an apron and gown, a surgical mask, eye protection, and gloves. Health care providers should wear PPE deemed appropriate by their regulatory institutions following their local and national guidelines during clinical patient interactions.

Restrict surgical attendees to vital personnel. The participation of learners by physical presence in the office or operating room should be restricted.

Continue to: Recommendations: Office setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Advise patients to come to the office alone. If the patient requires a companion, a maximum of one adult companion under the age of 60 should be accepted.
• Limit the number of health care team members present in the procedure room.

Intraprocedural recommendations

• Choose the appropriate device(s) that will allow for an effective and fast procedure.
• Use the recommended PPE for all clinicians.
• Limit the movement of staff members in and out of the procedure room.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same procedure room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Allow for patients to recover from the procedure in the same room as the procedure took place in order to avoid potential contamination of multiple rooms.
• Expedite patient discharge.
• Follow up after the procedure by phone or telemedicine.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Continue to: Recommendations: Operating room setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Perform adequate patient screening for potential COVID-19 infection. (Screening should be independent of symptoms and not be limited to those with clinical symptoms.)
• Limit the number of health care team members in the operating procedure room.
• To minimize unnecessary staff exposure, have surgeons and staff not needed for intubation remain outside the OR until intubation is completed and leave the OR before extubation.

Intraprocedure recommendations

• Limit personnel in the OR to a minimum.
• Staff should not enter or leave the room during the procedure.
• When possible, use conscious sedation or regional anesthesia to avoid the risk of viral dissemination at the time of intubation/extubation.
• Choose the device that will allow an effective and fast procedure.
• Favor non–smoke-generating devices, such as hysteroscopic scissors, graspers, and tissue retrieval systems.
• Connect active suction to the outflow, especially when using smoke-generating instruments, to facilitate the extraction of surgical smoke.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Expedite postprocedure recovery and patient discharge.
• After completion of the procedure, staff should remove scrubs and change into clean clothing.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health emergency. Our knowledge of this devastating virus is constantly evolving as we continue to fight this overwhelming disease. Theoretical risk of “viral” dissemination is considered extremely low, or negligible, during hysterosocopy. Hysteroscopic procedures in COVID-19–positive patients with life-threatening conditions or in patients in whom delaying the procedure could worsen outcomes should be performed taking appropriate measures. Patients who test negative for COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR) and require hysteroscopic procedures, should be treated using universal precautions. ●

The emergence of the coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19) in December 2019, has resulted in a global pandemic that has challenged the medical community and will continue to represent a public health emergency for the next several months.¹ It has rapidly spread globally, infecting many individuals in an unprecedented rate of infection and worldwide reach. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID-19 as a pandemic. While the majority of infected individuals are asymptomatic or develop only mild symptoms, some have an unfortunate clinical course resulting in multi-organ failure and death.²

It is accepted that the virus mainly spreads during close contact and via respiratory droplets.³ The average time from infection to onset of symptoms ranges from 2 to 14 days, with an average of 5 days.⁴ Recommended measures to prevent the spread of the infection include social distancing (at least 6 feet from others), meticulous hand hygiene, and wearing a mask covering the mouth and nose when in public.⁵ Aiming to mitigate the risk of viral dissemination for patients and health care providers, and to preserve hospital resources, all nonessential medical interventions were initially suspended. Recently, the American College of Surgeons in a joint statement with 9 women’s health care societies have provided recommendations on how to resume clinical activities as we recover from the pandemic.⁶

As we reinitiate clinical activities, gynecologists have been alerted of the potential risk of viral dissemination during gynecologic minimally invasive surgical procedures due to the presence of the virus in blood, stool, and the potential risk of aerosolization of the virus, especially when using smoke-generating devices.^7,8 This risk is not limited to intubation and extubation of the airway during anesthesia; the risk also presents itself during other aerosol-generating procedures, such as laparoscopy or robotic surgery.^9,10

Hysteroscopy is considered the gold standard procedure for the diagnosis and management of intrauterine pathologies.¹¹ It is frequently performed in an office setting without the use of anesthesia.^11,12 It is usually well tolerated, with only a few patients reporting discomfort.¹² It allows for immediate treatment (using the “see and treat” approach) while avoiding not only the risk of anesthesia, as stated, but also the need for intubation—which has a high risk of droplet contamination in COVID-19–infected individuals.¹³

Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures?

The novel and rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic present many challenges to the gynecologist. Significant concerns have been raised regarding potential risk of viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery due to aerosolization of viral particles and the presence of the virus in blood and the gastrointestinal tract of infected patients.⁷ Diagnostic, and some simple, hysteroscopic procedures are commonly performed in an outpatient setting, with the patient awake. Complex hysteroscopic interventions, however, are generally performed in the operating room, typically with the use of general anesthesia. Hysteroscopy has the theoretical risks of viral dissemination when performed in COVID-19–positive patients. Two important questions must be addressed to better understand the potential risk of COVID-19 viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures.

Continue to: 1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?...

1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?

Recent studies have confirmed the presence of viral particles in urine, feces, blood, and tears in addition to the respiratory tract in patients infected with COVID-19.^3,14,15 The presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the female genital system is currently unknown. Previous studies, of other epidemic viral infections, have demonstrated the presence of the virus in the female genital tract in affected patients of Zika virus and Ebola.^16,17 However, 2 recent studies have failed to demonstrate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the vaginal fluid of pregnant¹⁴ and not pregnant¹⁸ women with severe COVID-19 infection.

2. Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopy if using electrosurgery?

There are significant concerns with possible risk of COVID-19 transmission to health care providers in direct contact with infected patients during minimally invasive gynecologic procedures due to direct contamination and aerosolization of the virus.^10,19 Current data on COVID-19 transmission during surgery are limited. However, it is important to recognize that viral aerosolization has been documented with other viral diseases, such as human papillomavirus and hepatitis B.²⁰ A recent report called for awareness in the surgical community about the potential risks of COVID-19 viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery. Among other recommendations, international experts advised minimizing the use of electrosurgery to reduce the creation of surgical plume, decreasing the pneumoperitoneum pressure to minimum levels, and using suction devices in a closed system.²¹ Although these preventive measures apply to laparoscopic surgery, it is important to consider that hysteroscopy is performed in a unique environment.

During hysteroscopy the uterine cavity is distended with a liquid medium (normal saline or electrolyte-free solutions); this is opposed to gynecologic laparoscopy, in which the peritoneal cavity is distended with carbon dioxide.²² The smoke produced with the use of hysteroscopic electrosurgical instruments generates bubbles that are immediately cooled down to the temperature of the distention media and subsequently dissolve into it. Therefore, there are no bubbles generated during hysteroscopic surgery that are subsequently released into the air. This results in a low risk for viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures. Nevertheless, the necessary precautions to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during hysteroscopic intervention are extremely important.

Recommendations for hysteroscopic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic

We provide our overall recommendations for hysteroscopy, as well as those specific to the office and hospital setting.

Recommendations: General

Limit hysteroscopic procedures to COVID-19–negative patients and to those patients in whom delaying the procedure could result in adverse clinical outcomes.²³

Universally screen for potential COVID-19 infection. When possible, a phone interview to triage patients based on their symptoms and infection exposure status should take place before the patient arrives to the health care center. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection who require immediate evaluation should be directed to COVID-19–designated emergency areas.

Universally test for SARS-CoV-2 before procedures performed in the operating room (OR). Using nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of viral RNA, employing molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), within 48 to 72 hours prior to all OR hysteroscopic procedures is strongly recommended. Adopting this testing strategy will aid to identify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2‒infected patients, allowing to defer the procedure, if possible, among patients testing positive. If tests are limited, testing only patients scheduled for hysteroscopic procedures in which general or regional anesthesia will be required is acceptable.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients undergoing in-office hysteroscopic diagnostic or minor operative procedures without the use of anesthesia is not required.

Limit the presence of a companion. It is understood that visitor policies may vary at the discretion of each institution’s guidelines. Children and individuals over the age of 60 years should not be granted access to the center. Companions will be subjected to the same screening criteria as patients.

Provide for social distancing and other precautionary measures. If more than one patient is scheduled to be at the facility at the same time, ensure that the facility provides adequate space to allow the appropriate social distancing recommendations between patients. Hand sanitizers and facemasks should be available for patients and companions.

Provide PPE for clinicians. All health care providers in close contact with the patient must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes an apron and gown, a surgical mask, eye protection, and gloves. Health care providers should wear PPE deemed appropriate by their regulatory institutions following their local and national guidelines during clinical patient interactions.

Restrict surgical attendees to vital personnel. The participation of learners by physical presence in the office or operating room should be restricted.

Continue to: Recommendations: Office setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Advise patients to come to the office alone. If the patient requires a companion, a maximum of one adult companion under the age of 60 should be accepted.
• Limit the number of health care team members present in the procedure room.

Intraprocedural recommendations

• Choose the appropriate device(s) that will allow for an effective and fast procedure.
• Use the recommended PPE for all clinicians.
• Limit the movement of staff members in and out of the procedure room.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same procedure room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Allow for patients to recover from the procedure in the same room as the procedure took place in order to avoid potential contamination of multiple rooms.
• Expedite patient discharge.
• Follow up after the procedure by phone or telemedicine.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Continue to: Recommendations: Operating room setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Perform adequate patient screening for potential COVID-19 infection. (Screening should be independent of symptoms and not be limited to those with clinical symptoms.)
• Limit the number of health care team members in the operating procedure room.
• To minimize unnecessary staff exposure, have surgeons and staff not needed for intubation remain outside the OR until intubation is completed and leave the OR before extubation.

Intraprocedure recommendations

• Limit personnel in the OR to a minimum.
• Staff should not enter or leave the room during the procedure.
• When possible, use conscious sedation or regional anesthesia to avoid the risk of viral dissemination at the time of intubation/extubation.
• Choose the device that will allow an effective and fast procedure.
• Favor non–smoke-generating devices, such as hysteroscopic scissors, graspers, and tissue retrieval systems.
• Connect active suction to the outflow, especially when using smoke-generating instruments, to facilitate the extraction of surgical smoke.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Expedite postprocedure recovery and patient discharge.
• After completion of the procedure, staff should remove scrubs and change into clean clothing.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health emergency. Our knowledge of this devastating virus is constantly evolving as we continue to fight this overwhelming disease. Theoretical risk of “viral” dissemination is considered extremely low, or negligible, during hysterosocopy. Hysteroscopic procedures in COVID-19–positive patients with life-threatening conditions or in patients in whom delaying the procedure could worsen outcomes should be performed taking appropriate measures. Patients who test negative for COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR) and require hysteroscopic procedures, should be treated using universal precautions. ●

The emergence of the coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19) in December 2019, has resulted in a global pandemic that has challenged the medical community and will continue to represent a public health emergency for the next several months.¹ It has rapidly spread globally, infecting many individuals in an unprecedented rate of infection and worldwide reach. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID-19 as a pandemic. While the majority of infected individuals are asymptomatic or develop only mild symptoms, some have an unfortunate clinical course resulting in multi-organ failure and death.²

It is accepted that the virus mainly spreads during close contact and via respiratory droplets.³ The average time from infection to onset of symptoms ranges from 2 to 14 days, with an average of 5 days.⁴ Recommended measures to prevent the spread of the infection include social distancing (at least 6 feet from others), meticulous hand hygiene, and wearing a mask covering the mouth and nose when in public.⁵ Aiming to mitigate the risk of viral dissemination for patients and health care providers, and to preserve hospital resources, all nonessential medical interventions were initially suspended. Recently, the American College of Surgeons in a joint statement with 9 women’s health care societies have provided recommendations on how to resume clinical activities as we recover from the pandemic.⁶

As we reinitiate clinical activities, gynecologists have been alerted of the potential risk of viral dissemination during gynecologic minimally invasive surgical procedures due to the presence of the virus in blood, stool, and the potential risk of aerosolization of the virus, especially when using smoke-generating devices.^7,8 This risk is not limited to intubation and extubation of the airway during anesthesia; the risk also presents itself during other aerosol-generating procedures, such as laparoscopy or robotic surgery.^9,10

Hysteroscopy is considered the gold standard procedure for the diagnosis and management of intrauterine pathologies.¹¹ It is frequently performed in an office setting without the use of anesthesia.^11,12 It is usually well tolerated, with only a few patients reporting discomfort.¹² It allows for immediate treatment (using the “see and treat” approach) while avoiding not only the risk of anesthesia, as stated, but also the need for intubation—which has a high risk of droplet contamination in COVID-19–infected individuals.¹³

Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures?

The novel and rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic present many challenges to the gynecologist. Significant concerns have been raised regarding potential risk of viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery due to aerosolization of viral particles and the presence of the virus in blood and the gastrointestinal tract of infected patients.⁷ Diagnostic, and some simple, hysteroscopic procedures are commonly performed in an outpatient setting, with the patient awake. Complex hysteroscopic interventions, however, are generally performed in the operating room, typically with the use of general anesthesia. Hysteroscopy has the theoretical risks of viral dissemination when performed in COVID-19–positive patients. Two important questions must be addressed to better understand the potential risk of COVID-19 viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures.

Continue to: 1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?...

1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?

Recent studies have confirmed the presence of viral particles in urine, feces, blood, and tears in addition to the respiratory tract in patients infected with COVID-19.^3,14,15 The presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the female genital system is currently unknown. Previous studies, of other epidemic viral infections, have demonstrated the presence of the virus in the female genital tract in affected patients of Zika virus and Ebola.^16,17 However, 2 recent studies have failed to demonstrate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the vaginal fluid of pregnant¹⁴ and not pregnant¹⁸ women with severe COVID-19 infection.

2. Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopy if using electrosurgery?

There are significant concerns with possible risk of COVID-19 transmission to health care providers in direct contact with infected patients during minimally invasive gynecologic procedures due to direct contamination and aerosolization of the virus.^10,19 Current data on COVID-19 transmission during surgery are limited. However, it is important to recognize that viral aerosolization has been documented with other viral diseases, such as human papillomavirus and hepatitis B.²⁰ A recent report called for awareness in the surgical community about the potential risks of COVID-19 viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery. Among other recommendations, international experts advised minimizing the use of electrosurgery to reduce the creation of surgical plume, decreasing the pneumoperitoneum pressure to minimum levels, and using suction devices in a closed system.²¹ Although these preventive measures apply to laparoscopic surgery, it is important to consider that hysteroscopy is performed in a unique environment.

During hysteroscopy the uterine cavity is distended with a liquid medium (normal saline or electrolyte-free solutions); this is opposed to gynecologic laparoscopy, in which the peritoneal cavity is distended with carbon dioxide.²² The smoke produced with the use of hysteroscopic electrosurgical instruments generates bubbles that are immediately cooled down to the temperature of the distention media and subsequently dissolve into it. Therefore, there are no bubbles generated during hysteroscopic surgery that are subsequently released into the air. This results in a low risk for viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures. Nevertheless, the necessary precautions to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during hysteroscopic intervention are extremely important.

Recommendations for hysteroscopic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic

We provide our overall recommendations for hysteroscopy, as well as those specific to the office and hospital setting.

Recommendations: General

Limit hysteroscopic procedures to COVID-19–negative patients and to those patients in whom delaying the procedure could result in adverse clinical outcomes.²³

Universally screen for potential COVID-19 infection. When possible, a phone interview to triage patients based on their symptoms and infection exposure status should take place before the patient arrives to the health care center. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection who require immediate evaluation should be directed to COVID-19–designated emergency areas.

Universally test for SARS-CoV-2 before procedures performed in the operating room (OR). Using nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of viral RNA, employing molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), within 48 to 72 hours prior to all OR hysteroscopic procedures is strongly recommended. Adopting this testing strategy will aid to identify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2‒infected patients, allowing to defer the procedure, if possible, among patients testing positive. If tests are limited, testing only patients scheduled for hysteroscopic procedures in which general or regional anesthesia will be required is acceptable.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients undergoing in-office hysteroscopic diagnostic or minor operative procedures without the use of anesthesia is not required.

Limit the presence of a companion. It is understood that visitor policies may vary at the discretion of each institution’s guidelines. Children and individuals over the age of 60 years should not be granted access to the center. Companions will be subjected to the same screening criteria as patients.

Provide for social distancing and other precautionary measures. If more than one patient is scheduled to be at the facility at the same time, ensure that the facility provides adequate space to allow the appropriate social distancing recommendations between patients. Hand sanitizers and facemasks should be available for patients and companions.

Provide PPE for clinicians. All health care providers in close contact with the patient must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes an apron and gown, a surgical mask, eye protection, and gloves. Health care providers should wear PPE deemed appropriate by their regulatory institutions following their local and national guidelines during clinical patient interactions.

Restrict surgical attendees to vital personnel. The participation of learners by physical presence in the office or operating room should be restricted.

Continue to: Recommendations: Office setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Advise patients to come to the office alone. If the patient requires a companion, a maximum of one adult companion under the age of 60 should be accepted.
• Limit the number of health care team members present in the procedure room.

Intraprocedural recommendations

• Choose the appropriate device(s) that will allow for an effective and fast procedure.
• Use the recommended PPE for all clinicians.
• Limit the movement of staff members in and out of the procedure room.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same procedure room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Allow for patients to recover from the procedure in the same room as the procedure took place in order to avoid potential contamination of multiple rooms.
• Expedite patient discharge.
• Follow up after the procedure by phone or telemedicine.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Continue to: Recommendations: Operating room setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Perform adequate patient screening for potential COVID-19 infection. (Screening should be independent of symptoms and not be limited to those with clinical symptoms.)
• Limit the number of health care team members in the operating procedure room.
• To minimize unnecessary staff exposure, have surgeons and staff not needed for intubation remain outside the OR until intubation is completed and leave the OR before extubation.

Intraprocedure recommendations

• Limit personnel in the OR to a minimum.
• Staff should not enter or leave the room during the procedure.
• When possible, use conscious sedation or regional anesthesia to avoid the risk of viral dissemination at the time of intubation/extubation.
• Choose the device that will allow an effective and fast procedure.
• Favor non–smoke-generating devices, such as hysteroscopic scissors, graspers, and tissue retrieval systems.
• Connect active suction to the outflow, especially when using smoke-generating instruments, to facilitate the extraction of surgical smoke.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Expedite postprocedure recovery and patient discharge.
• After completion of the procedure, staff should remove scrubs and change into clean clothing.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health emergency. Our knowledge of this devastating virus is constantly evolving as we continue to fight this overwhelming disease. Theoretical risk of “viral” dissemination is considered extremely low, or negligible, during hysterosocopy. Hysteroscopic procedures in COVID-19–positive patients with life-threatening conditions or in patients in whom delaying the procedure could worsen outcomes should be performed taking appropriate measures. Patients who test negative for COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR) and require hysteroscopic procedures, should be treated using universal precautions. ●

Postoperative voiding dysfunction refers to the acute inability to spontaneously and adequately empty the bladder after surgery. Postoperative voiding dysfunction occurs in 21% to 42% of pelvic reconstructive surgeries, as well as 7% to 21% of benign gynecologic surgeries.^1-4 While much of its peril lies in patient discomfort or dissatisfaction with temporary bladder drainage, serious consequences of the disorder include bladder overdistension injury with inadequate drainage and urinary tract infection (UTI) associated with prolonged catheterization.^4-6

Although transient postoperative voiding dysfunction is associated with anti-incontinence surgery, tricyclic antidepressant use, diabetes, preoperative voiding dysfunction, and postoperative narcotic use, it also may occur in patients without risk factors.^4,7,8 Thus, all gynecologic surgeons should be prepared to assess and manage the patient with postoperative voiding dysfunction.

Diagnosis of postoperative voiding dysfunction can be approached in myriad ways, including spontaneous (or natural) bladder filling or bladder backfill followed by spontaneous void. When compared with spontaneous void trials, backfill-assisted void trial is associated with improved accuracy in predicting voiding dysfunction in patients who undergo urogynecologic surgery, leading to widespread adoption of the procedure following pelvic reconstructive surgeries.^9,10

Criteria for “passing” a void trial may include the patient’s subjective feeling of having emptied her bladder; having a near-baseline force of stream; or commonly by objective parameters of voided volume and postvoid residual (PVR), assessed via catheterization or bladder scan.^3,6,10 Completing a postoperative void trial typically requires significant nursing effort because of the technical demands of backfilling the bladder, obtaining the voided volume and PVR, or assessing subjective emptying.

Management of postoperative voiding dysfunction typically consists of continuous drainage with a transurethral catheter or clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC). Patients discharged home with a bladder drainage method also may be prescribed various medications, such as antibiotics, anticholinergics, and bladder analgesics, which often depends on provider practice.

Given the minimal universal guidance available for gynecologic surgeons on postoperative voiding dysfunction, we review several articles that contribute new evidence on the assessment and management of this condition.

Continue to: How can we efficiently approach the postoperative void trial for pelvic floor surgery? 

How can we efficiently approach the postoperative void trial for pelvic floor surgery? 

Chao L, Mansuria S. Postoperative bladder filling after outpatient laparoscopic hysterectomy and time to discharge: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:879-887. 

Despite efforts to implement and promote enhanced recovery after surgery pathways, waiting for spontaneous void can be a barrier to efficient same-day discharge. Chao and Mansuria conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether backfilling the bladder intraoperatively, compared with spontaneous (physiologic) filling, would reduce time to discharge in patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) or supracervical hysterectomy (SCH). 

Study details 

Women undergoing TLH or laparoscopic SCH for benign indications were randomly assigned to undergo either a backfill-assisted void trial in the operating room with 200 mL of sterile normal saline (n = 75) or Foley catheter removal with spontaneous fill in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) (n = 78). 

For both groups, the maximum time allowed for spontaneous void was 5 hours. A successful void trial was defined as a voided volume of at least 200 mL. If a patient was unable to void at least 200 mL, a bladder scan was performed, and the patient was considered to have failed the void trial if a PVR of 200 mL or greater was noted. If the PVR was less than 200 mL, the patient was given an additional 1 hour to spontaneously void 200 mL by 6 hours after the surgery. Patients who failed the void trial were discharged home with a transurethral catheter. 

The primary outcome was time to discharge, and the sample size (153 participants included in the analysis) allowed 80% power to detect a 30-minute difference in time to discharge. Participant baseline characteristics, concomitant procedures, and indication for hysterectomy were similar for both groups. 

Results. The mean time to discharge was 273.4 minutes for the backfill-assisted void trial group and 283.2 minutes for the spontaneous fill group, a difference of 9.8 minutes that was not statistically significant (P = .45). 

Although it was not a primary outcome, time to spontaneous void was 24.9 minutes shorter in the backfill group (P = .04). Rates of postoperative voiding dysfunction did not differ between the 2 groups (6.7% for the backfill group and 12.8% for the spontaneous fill group; P = .2). There were no significant differences in emergency department visits, UTI rates, or readmissions. 

Bladder backfill is safe, simple, and may reduce time to spontaneous void 

Strengths of the study included its prospective randomized design, blinded outcome assessors, and diversity in benign gynecologic surgeries performed. Although this study found a reduced time to spontaneous void in the backfill group, it was not powered to assess this difference, limiting ability to draw conclusions from those data. Data on postoperative nausea and pain scores also were not collected, which likely influenced the overall time to discharge. 

Void trial completion is one of many criteria to fulfill prior to patient discharge, and a reduced time to first void may not decrease the overall length of PACU stay if other factors, such as nausea or pain, are not controlled. Nonetheless, backfilling the bladder intraoperatively is a safe alternative that may decrease the time to first spontaneous void, and it is a relatively simple alteration in the surgical workflow that could significantly lessen PACU nursing demands.

Continue to: Algorithm assesses need for PVR, although further study required...

Algorithm assesses need for PVR, although further study required 

Meekins AR, Siddiqui N, Amundsen CL, et al. Improving postoperative efficiency: an algorithm for expedited void trials after urogynecologic surgery. South Med J. 2017;110:785-790. 

To determine ways to further maximize postoperative efficiency, Meekins and colleagues sought to determine whether certain voided volumes during backfill-assisted void trials could obviate the need for PVR assessment. 

Void trial results calculated to develop algorithm 

The study was a secondary analysis of a previously conducted RCT that assessed antibiotics for the prevention of UTI after urogynecologic surgery. Void trials from the parent RCT were performed via the backfill-assisted method in which the bladder was backfilled in the PACU with 300 mL of normal saline or until the patient reported urgency to void, after which the catheter was removed and the patient was prompted to void immediately. 

Postvoid residual levels were assessed via ultrasonography or catheterization. A void trial was considered to be passed when a PVR was less than 100 mL or less than 50% of the total bladder volume, with a minimum voided volume of 200 mL. 

In the follow-up study, the authors analyzed the void trial results of 255 women of the original 264 in the parent RCT. A total of 69% of patients passed their void trial. The authors assessed the optimal positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) combinations, which were then used to create lower and upper voided volume thresholds that would best predict a failed or passed trial, thus obviating PVR measurement. 

Results. When patients voided less than 100 mL, the NPV was 96.7% (meaning that they had a 96.7% chance of failing the void trial). When patients voided 200 mL or more, the PPV was 97% (meaning that they had a 97% chance of passing the void trial). Receiver operating characteristic analysis confirmed that voided volume alone was an excellent predictor of final void trial results, with area under the curve of 0.97. The authors estimated that applying this algorithm to their study population would have eliminated the need for assessing PVR in 85% of patients. Ultimately, they proposed the algorithm shown in TABLE 1. 

A potential alternative for assessing PVR 

This study's strengths include the use of prospectively and systematically collected void trial data in a large patient population undergoing various urogynecologic procedures. By contrast, the generalizability of the results is limited regarding other void trial methods, such as spontaneous filling and void, as well as populations outside of the studied institution. 

With the algorithm, the authors estimated that the majority of postoperative patients would no longer require a PVR assessment in the PACU. This could have beneficial downstream implications, including decreasing the nursing workload, reducing total time in the PACU, and minimizing patient discomfort with PVR assessment. 

While further studies are needed to validate the proposed algorithm in larger populations, this study provides evidence of an efficient alternative to the traditional approach to PVR assessment in the PACU.

Continue to: An alternative to Foley use if a patient does not know CISC...

An alternative to Foley use if a patient does not know CISC 

Boyd SS, O'Sullivan DM, Tunitsky-Bitton E. A comparison of two methods of catheter management after pelvic reconstructive surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134:1037-1045. 

The traditional indwelling catheter as a postoperative bladder drainage method has a number of drawbacks, including an increased rate of UTI, patient discomfort, and potential limitations in mobility due to the presence of a drainage bag.⁵ 

Boyd and colleagues reported on a variation of traditional transurethral catheterization that hypothetically allows for improved mobility. With this method, the transurethral catheter is occluded with a plastic plug that is intermittently plugged and unplugged (plug-unplug method) for bladder drainage. To test whether activity levels are improved with the plug-unplug method versus the continuous drainage approach, the authors conducted an RCT in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery to compare the plug-unplug method with transurethral catheterization (with a continuous drainage bag) and a reference group of freely voiding women. 

Study particulars and outcomes 

The trial's primary outcome was the patients' activity score as measured by the Activity Assessment Scale (AAS) at 5 to 7 days postoperatively. Because of the theoretically increased risk of a UTI with opening and closing a closed drainage system, secondary outcomes included the UTI rate, the time to pass an outpatient void trial, postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, and catheter effect. To detect an effect size of 0.33 in the primary outcome between the 3 groups, 90 participants were needed along with a difference in proportions of 0.3 between the catheterized and noncatheterized groups. 

The participants were randomly assigned 1:1 preoperatively to the continuous drainage or plug-unplug method. All patients underwent a backfill-assisted void trial prior to hospital discharge; the first 30 randomly assigned patients to pass their void trial comprised the reference group. Patients in the plug-unplug arm were instructed to uncap the plastic plug to drain their bladder when they felt the urge to void or at least every 4 hours. All catheterized patients were provided with a large drainage bag for gravity-based drainage for overnight use. 

Participants who were discharged home with a catheter underwent an outpatient void trial between postoperative days 5 and 7. A urinalysis was performed at that time and a urine culture was done if a patient reported UTI symptoms. All patients underwent routine follow-up until they passed the office void trial. 

Results. Ninety-three women were included in the primary analysis. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between groups. No difference was detected in activity by AAS scores between all 3 groups (scores: plug-unplug, 70.3; continuous drainage, 67.7; reference arm, 79.4; P = .09). The 2 treatment arms had no overall difference in culture-positive UTI (plug-unplug, 68.8%; continuous drainage, 48.4%; P = .625). No significant difference was found in the percentage of patients who passed their initial outpatient void trial (plug-unplug, 71.9%, vs continuous drainage, 58.1%; P = .25) (TABLE 2).

Catheter impact on postoperative activity considered 

Strengths of the study include the prospective randomized design, the inclusion of a noncatheterized reference arm, and use of a validated questionnaire to assess activity. The study was limited, however, by the inability to blind patients to treatment and the lack of power to assess other important outcomes, such as UTI rates. 

Although the authors did not find a difference in activity scores between the 2 catheterization methods, no significant difference was found between the catheterized and noncatheterized groups, which suggests that catheters in general may not significantly impact postoperative activity. The theoretical concern that opening and closing a transurethral drainage system would increase UTI rates was not substantiated, although the study was not powered specifically for this outcome. 

Ultimately, the plug-unplug method may be a safe alternative for patients who desire to avoid attachment to a drainage bag postoperatively. 

Continue to: Does antibiotic prophylaxis reduce UTI for patients catheter-managed postoperatively? 

Does antibiotic prophylaxis reduce UTI for patients catheter-managed postoperatively? 

Lavelle ES, Alam P, Meister M, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis during catheter-managed postoperative urinary retention after pelvic reconstructive surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134:727-735. 

Limited high-quality evidence supports the use of prophylactic antibiotics during catheterization following prolapse or incontinence surgery, and the Infectious Disease Society of America cautions against routine antibiotic prophylaxis for those requiring catheterization.¹¹ 

Lavelle and colleagues conducted a multicenter RCT to determine whether nitrofurantoin is more effective than placebo in decreasing UTIs among patients with postoperative voiding dysfunction following surgery for prolapse or incontinence. 

Focus of the study 

The investigators conducted a double-blind RCT at 5 academic sites that included women with postoperative voiding dysfunction who required catheter management (transurethral indwelling catheter or CISC). Voiding dysfunction was diagnosed by backfill or spontaneous fill void trial and was defined as a PVR of greater than 100 mL. Women were randomly assigned 1:1 to nitrofurantoin 100 mg or placebo taken daily during catheter use. Catheter use was discontinued once an outpatient void trial confirmed efficient voiding. 

The primary outcome was symptomatic culture-confirmed UTI within 6 weeks of surgery. Secondary outcomes included frequency of urine cultures with nitrofurantoin-resistant or intermediate-sensitivity isolates and adverse symptoms possibly related to nitrofurantoin. The authors calculated that 154 participants would provide 80% power to detect a decrease in UTI incidence from 33% to 13%, allowing for 10% dropout. 

A total of 151 women were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. There were no differences in baseline characteristics. The median duration of catheter use was 4 days (interquartile range, 3-7). 

Results. Overall, 13 women in the nitrofurantoin group and 13 in the placebo group experienced the primary outcome of UTI within 6 weeks postoperatively (17.3% nitrofurantoin vs 17.1% placebo; P = .97; relative risk [RR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-2.04). The number needed to treat with nitrofurantoin to prevent 1 UTI was 500. A subanalysis found no difference in UTI incidence stratified by CISC versus indwelling catheter. 

Urine cultures were obtained for 94.5% of all patients reporting UTI symptoms. Four isolates of the 13 cultures in the nitrofurantoin group (30.8%) and 3 in the placebo group (21.4%) showed nitrofurantoin resistance (P = .58). The rate of endorsing at least 1 adverse symptom attributable to nitrofurantoin was similar between groups (68.0% vs 60.5%, respectively; P = .34). 

Study strong points and limitations 

This study's randomized, placebo-controlled design and multicenter recruitment increase the generalizability of the results. An additional strength is that the authors chose a clinically relevant definition of UTI. The study was likely underpowered, however, to detect differences in secondary outcomes, such as nitrofurantoin resistance. We cannot conclude on the role of antibiotics for patients who require more prolonged catheterization. 

Notably, a similar RCT by Dieter and colleagues of 159 patients undergoing daily nitrofurantoin versus placebo during CISC or transurethral catheterization failed to detect a difference in the rate of UTI treatment up to 3 weeks postoperatively with nitrofurantoin prophylaxis.¹² 

Ultimately, the study by Lavelle and colleagues contributes to a growing body of evidence that supports the avoidance of antibiotic prophylaxis during short-term postoperative catheterization.

Postoperative voiding dysfunction refers to the acute inability to spontaneously and adequately empty the bladder after surgery. Postoperative voiding dysfunction occurs in 21% to 42% of pelvic reconstructive surgeries, as well as 7% to 21% of benign gynecologic surgeries.^1-4 While much of its peril lies in patient discomfort or dissatisfaction with temporary bladder drainage, serious consequences of the disorder include bladder overdistension injury with inadequate drainage and urinary tract infection (UTI) associated with prolonged catheterization.^4-6

Although transient postoperative voiding dysfunction is associated with anti-incontinence surgery, tricyclic antidepressant use, diabetes, preoperative voiding dysfunction, and postoperative narcotic use, it also may occur in patients without risk factors.^4,7,8 Thus, all gynecologic surgeons should be prepared to assess and manage the patient with postoperative voiding dysfunction.

Diagnosis of postoperative voiding dysfunction can be approached in myriad ways, including spontaneous (or natural) bladder filling or bladder backfill followed by spontaneous void. When compared with spontaneous void trials, backfill-assisted void trial is associated with improved accuracy in predicting voiding dysfunction in patients who undergo urogynecologic surgery, leading to widespread adoption of the procedure following pelvic reconstructive surgeries.^9,10

Criteria for “passing” a void trial may include the patient’s subjective feeling of having emptied her bladder; having a near-baseline force of stream; or commonly by objective parameters of voided volume and postvoid residual (PVR), assessed via catheterization or bladder scan.^3,6,10 Completing a postoperative void trial typically requires significant nursing effort because of the technical demands of backfilling the bladder, obtaining the voided volume and PVR, or assessing subjective emptying.

Management of postoperative voiding dysfunction typically consists of continuous drainage with a transurethral catheter or clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC). Patients discharged home with a bladder drainage method also may be prescribed various medications, such as antibiotics, anticholinergics, and bladder analgesics, which often depends on provider practice.

Given the minimal universal guidance available for gynecologic surgeons on postoperative voiding dysfunction, we review several articles that contribute new evidence on the assessment and management of this condition.

Continue to: How can we efficiently approach the postoperative void trial for pelvic floor surgery? 

How can we efficiently approach the postoperative void trial for pelvic floor surgery? 

Chao L, Mansuria S. Postoperative bladder filling after outpatient laparoscopic hysterectomy and time to discharge: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:879-887. 

Despite efforts to implement and promote enhanced recovery after surgery pathways, waiting for spontaneous void can be a barrier to efficient same-day discharge. Chao and Mansuria conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether backfilling the bladder intraoperatively, compared with spontaneous (physiologic) filling, would reduce time to discharge in patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) or supracervical hysterectomy (SCH). 

Study details 

Women undergoing TLH or laparoscopic SCH for benign indications were randomly assigned to undergo either a backfill-assisted void trial in the operating room with 200 mL of sterile normal saline (n = 75) or Foley catheter removal with spontaneous fill in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) (n = 78). 

For both groups, the maximum time allowed for spontaneous void was 5 hours. A successful void trial was defined as a voided volume of at least 200 mL. If a patient was unable to void at least 200 mL, a bladder scan was performed, and the patient was considered to have failed the void trial if a PVR of 200 mL or greater was noted. If the PVR was less than 200 mL, the patient was given an additional 1 hour to spontaneously void 200 mL by 6 hours after the surgery. Patients who failed the void trial were discharged home with a transurethral catheter. 

The primary outcome was time to discharge, and the sample size (153 participants included in the analysis) allowed 80% power to detect a 30-minute difference in time to discharge. Participant baseline characteristics, concomitant procedures, and indication for hysterectomy were similar for both groups. 

Results. The mean time to discharge was 273.4 minutes for the backfill-assisted void trial group and 283.2 minutes for the spontaneous fill group, a difference of 9.8 minutes that was not statistically significant (P = .45). 

Although it was not a primary outcome, time to spontaneous void was 24.9 minutes shorter in the backfill group (P = .04). Rates of postoperative voiding dysfunction did not differ between the 2 groups (6.7% for the backfill group and 12.8% for the spontaneous fill group; P = .2). There were no significant differences in emergency department visits, UTI rates, or readmissions. 

Bladder backfill is safe, simple, and may reduce time to spontaneous void 

Strengths of the study included its prospective randomized design, blinded outcome assessors, and diversity in benign gynecologic surgeries performed. Although this study found a reduced time to spontaneous void in the backfill group, it was not powered to assess this difference, limiting ability to draw conclusions from those data. Data on postoperative nausea and pain scores also were not collected, which likely influenced the overall time to discharge. 

Void trial completion is one of many criteria to fulfill prior to patient discharge, and a reduced time to first void may not decrease the overall length of PACU stay if other factors, such as nausea or pain, are not controlled. Nonetheless, backfilling the bladder intraoperatively is a safe alternative that may decrease the time to first spontaneous void, and it is a relatively simple alteration in the surgical workflow that could significantly lessen PACU nursing demands.

Continue to: Algorithm assesses need for PVR, although further study required...

Algorithm assesses need for PVR, although further study required 

Meekins AR, Siddiqui N, Amundsen CL, et al. Improving postoperative efficiency: an algorithm for expedited void trials after urogynecologic surgery. South Med J. 2017;110:785-790. 

To determine ways to further maximize postoperative efficiency, Meekins and colleagues sought to determine whether certain voided volumes during backfill-assisted void trials could obviate the need for PVR assessment. 

Void trial results calculated to develop algorithm 

The study was a secondary analysis of a previously conducted RCT that assessed antibiotics for the prevention of UTI after urogynecologic surgery. Void trials from the parent RCT were performed via the backfill-assisted method in which the bladder was backfilled in the PACU with 300 mL of normal saline or until the patient reported urgency to void, after which the catheter was removed and the patient was prompted to void immediately. 

Postvoid residual levels were assessed via ultrasonography or catheterization. A void trial was considered to be passed when a PVR was less than 100 mL or less than 50% of the total bladder volume, with a minimum voided volume of 200 mL. 

In the follow-up study, the authors analyzed the void trial results of 255 women of the original 264 in the parent RCT. A total of 69% of patients passed their void trial. The authors assessed the optimal positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) combinations, which were then used to create lower and upper voided volume thresholds that would best predict a failed or passed trial, thus obviating PVR measurement. 

Results. When patients voided less than 100 mL, the NPV was 96.7% (meaning that they had a 96.7% chance of failing the void trial). When patients voided 200 mL or more, the PPV was 97% (meaning that they had a 97% chance of passing the void trial). Receiver operating characteristic analysis confirmed that voided volume alone was an excellent predictor of final void trial results, with area under the curve of 0.97. The authors estimated that applying this algorithm to their study population would have eliminated the need for assessing PVR in 85% of patients. Ultimately, they proposed the algorithm shown in TABLE 1. 

A potential alternative for assessing PVR 

This study's strengths include the use of prospectively and systematically collected void trial data in a large patient population undergoing various urogynecologic procedures. By contrast, the generalizability of the results is limited regarding other void trial methods, such as spontaneous filling and void, as well as populations outside of the studied institution. 

With the algorithm, the authors estimated that the majority of postoperative patients would no longer require a PVR assessment in the PACU. This could have beneficial downstream implications, including decreasing the nursing workload, reducing total time in the PACU, and minimizing patient discomfort with PVR assessment. 

While further studies are needed to validate the proposed algorithm in larger populations, this study provides evidence of an efficient alternative to the traditional approach to PVR assessment in the PACU.

Continue to: An alternative to Foley use if a patient does not know CISC...

An alternative to Foley use if a patient does not know CISC 

Boyd SS, O'Sullivan DM, Tunitsky-Bitton E. A comparison of two methods of catheter management after pelvic reconstructive surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134:1037-1045. 

The traditional indwelling catheter as a postoperative bladder drainage method has a number of drawbacks, including an increased rate of UTI, patient discomfort, and potential limitations in mobility due to the presence of a drainage bag.⁵ 

Boyd and colleagues reported on a variation of traditional transurethral catheterization that hypothetically allows for improved mobility. With this method, the transurethral catheter is occluded with a plastic plug that is intermittently plugged and unplugged (plug-unplug method) for bladder drainage. To test whether activity levels are improved with the plug-unplug method versus the continuous drainage approach, the authors conducted an RCT in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery to compare the plug-unplug method with transurethral catheterization (with a continuous drainage bag) and a reference group of freely voiding women. 

Study particulars and outcomes 

The trial's primary outcome was the patients' activity score as measured by the Activity Assessment Scale (AAS) at 5 to 7 days postoperatively. Because of the theoretically increased risk of a UTI with opening and closing a closed drainage system, secondary outcomes included the UTI rate, the time to pass an outpatient void trial, postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, and catheter effect. To detect an effect size of 0.33 in the primary outcome between the 3 groups, 90 participants were needed along with a difference in proportions of 0.3 between the catheterized and noncatheterized groups. 

The participants were randomly assigned 1:1 preoperatively to the continuous drainage or plug-unplug method. All patients underwent a backfill-assisted void trial prior to hospital discharge; the first 30 randomly assigned patients to pass their void trial comprised the reference group. Patients in the plug-unplug arm were instructed to uncap the plastic plug to drain their bladder when they felt the urge to void or at least every 4 hours. All catheterized patients were provided with a large drainage bag for gravity-based drainage for overnight use. 

Participants who were discharged home with a catheter underwent an outpatient void trial between postoperative days 5 and 7. A urinalysis was performed at that time and a urine culture was done if a patient reported UTI symptoms. All patients underwent routine follow-up until they passed the office void trial. 

Results. Ninety-three women were included in the primary analysis. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between groups. No difference was detected in activity by AAS scores between all 3 groups (scores: plug-unplug, 70.3; continuous drainage, 67.7; reference arm, 79.4; P = .09). The 2 treatment arms had no overall difference in culture-positive UTI (plug-unplug, 68.8%; continuous drainage, 48.4%; P = .625). No significant difference was found in the percentage of patients who passed their initial outpatient void trial (plug-unplug, 71.9%, vs continuous drainage, 58.1%; P = .25) (TABLE 2).

Catheter impact on postoperative activity considered 

Strengths of the study include the prospective randomized design, the inclusion of a noncatheterized reference arm, and use of a validated questionnaire to assess activity. The study was limited, however, by the inability to blind patients to treatment and the lack of power to assess other important outcomes, such as UTI rates. 

Although the authors did not find a difference in activity scores between the 2 catheterization methods, no significant difference was found between the catheterized and noncatheterized groups, which suggests that catheters in general may not significantly impact postoperative activity. The theoretical concern that opening and closing a transurethral drainage system would increase UTI rates was not substantiated, although the study was not powered specifically for this outcome. 

Ultimately, the plug-unplug method may be a safe alternative for patients who desire to avoid attachment to a drainage bag postoperatively. 

Continue to: Does antibiotic prophylaxis reduce UTI for patients catheter-managed postoperatively? 

Does antibiotic prophylaxis reduce UTI for patients catheter-managed postoperatively? 

Lavelle ES, Alam P, Meister M, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis during catheter-managed postoperative urinary retention after pelvic reconstructive surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134:727-735. 

Limited high-quality evidence supports the use of prophylactic antibiotics during catheterization following prolapse or incontinence surgery, and the Infectious Disease Society of America cautions against routine antibiotic prophylaxis for those requiring catheterization.¹¹ 

Lavelle and colleagues conducted a multicenter RCT to determine whether nitrofurantoin is more effective than placebo in decreasing UTIs among patients with postoperative voiding dysfunction following surgery for prolapse or incontinence. 

Focus of the study 

The investigators conducted a double-blind RCT at 5 academic sites that included women with postoperative voiding dysfunction who required catheter management (transurethral indwelling catheter or CISC). Voiding dysfunction was diagnosed by backfill or spontaneous fill void trial and was defined as a PVR of greater than 100 mL. Women were randomly assigned 1:1 to nitrofurantoin 100 mg or placebo taken daily during catheter use. Catheter use was discontinued once an outpatient void trial confirmed efficient voiding. 

The primary outcome was symptomatic culture-confirmed UTI within 6 weeks of surgery. Secondary outcomes included frequency of urine cultures with nitrofurantoin-resistant or intermediate-sensitivity isolates and adverse symptoms possibly related to nitrofurantoin. The authors calculated that 154 participants would provide 80% power to detect a decrease in UTI incidence from 33% to 13%, allowing for 10% dropout. 

A total of 151 women were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. There were no differences in baseline characteristics. The median duration of catheter use was 4 days (interquartile range, 3-7). 

Results. Overall, 13 women in the nitrofurantoin group and 13 in the placebo group experienced the primary outcome of UTI within 6 weeks postoperatively (17.3% nitrofurantoin vs 17.1% placebo; P = .97; relative risk [RR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-2.04). The number needed to treat with nitrofurantoin to prevent 1 UTI was 500. A subanalysis found no difference in UTI incidence stratified by CISC versus indwelling catheter. 

Urine cultures were obtained for 94.5% of all patients reporting UTI symptoms. Four isolates of the 13 cultures in the nitrofurantoin group (30.8%) and 3 in the placebo group (21.4%) showed nitrofurantoin resistance (P = .58). The rate of endorsing at least 1 adverse symptom attributable to nitrofurantoin was similar between groups (68.0% vs 60.5%, respectively; P = .34). 

Study strong points and limitations 

This study's randomized, placebo-controlled design and multicenter recruitment increase the generalizability of the results. An additional strength is that the authors chose a clinically relevant definition of UTI. The study was likely underpowered, however, to detect differences in secondary outcomes, such as nitrofurantoin resistance. We cannot conclude on the role of antibiotics for patients who require more prolonged catheterization. 

Notably, a similar RCT by Dieter and colleagues of 159 patients undergoing daily nitrofurantoin versus placebo during CISC or transurethral catheterization failed to detect a difference in the rate of UTI treatment up to 3 weeks postoperatively with nitrofurantoin prophylaxis.¹² 

Ultimately, the study by Lavelle and colleagues contributes to a growing body of evidence that supports the avoidance of antibiotic prophylaxis during short-term postoperative catheterization.

Postoperative voiding dysfunction refers to the acute inability to spontaneously and adequately empty the bladder after surgery. Postoperative voiding dysfunction occurs in 21% to 42% of pelvic reconstructive surgeries, as well as 7% to 21% of benign gynecologic surgeries.^1-4 While much of its peril lies in patient discomfort or dissatisfaction with temporary bladder drainage, serious consequences of the disorder include bladder overdistension injury with inadequate drainage and urinary tract infection (UTI) associated with prolonged catheterization.^4-6

Although transient postoperative voiding dysfunction is associated with anti-incontinence surgery, tricyclic antidepressant use, diabetes, preoperative voiding dysfunction, and postoperative narcotic use, it also may occur in patients without risk factors.^4,7,8 Thus, all gynecologic surgeons should be prepared to assess and manage the patient with postoperative voiding dysfunction.

Diagnosis of postoperative voiding dysfunction can be approached in myriad ways, including spontaneous (or natural) bladder filling or bladder backfill followed by spontaneous void. When compared with spontaneous void trials, backfill-assisted void trial is associated with improved accuracy in predicting voiding dysfunction in patients who undergo urogynecologic surgery, leading to widespread adoption of the procedure following pelvic reconstructive surgeries.^9,10

Criteria for “passing” a void trial may include the patient’s subjective feeling of having emptied her bladder; having a near-baseline force of stream; or commonly by objective parameters of voided volume and postvoid residual (PVR), assessed via catheterization or bladder scan.^3,6,10 Completing a postoperative void trial typically requires significant nursing effort because of the technical demands of backfilling the bladder, obtaining the voided volume and PVR, or assessing subjective emptying.

Management of postoperative voiding dysfunction typically consists of continuous drainage with a transurethral catheter or clean intermittent self-catheterization (CISC). Patients discharged home with a bladder drainage method also may be prescribed various medications, such as antibiotics, anticholinergics, and bladder analgesics, which often depends on provider practice.

Given the minimal universal guidance available for gynecologic surgeons on postoperative voiding dysfunction, we review several articles that contribute new evidence on the assessment and management of this condition.

Continue to: How can we efficiently approach the postoperative void trial for pelvic floor surgery? 

How can we efficiently approach the postoperative void trial for pelvic floor surgery? 

Chao L, Mansuria S. Postoperative bladder filling after outpatient laparoscopic hysterectomy and time to discharge: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:879-887. 

Despite efforts to implement and promote enhanced recovery after surgery pathways, waiting for spontaneous void can be a barrier to efficient same-day discharge. Chao and Mansuria conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether backfilling the bladder intraoperatively, compared with spontaneous (physiologic) filling, would reduce time to discharge in patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) or supracervical hysterectomy (SCH). 

Study details 

Women undergoing TLH or laparoscopic SCH for benign indications were randomly assigned to undergo either a backfill-assisted void trial in the operating room with 200 mL of sterile normal saline (n = 75) or Foley catheter removal with spontaneous fill in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) (n = 78). 

For both groups, the maximum time allowed for spontaneous void was 5 hours. A successful void trial was defined as a voided volume of at least 200 mL. If a patient was unable to void at least 200 mL, a bladder scan was performed, and the patient was considered to have failed the void trial if a PVR of 200 mL or greater was noted. If the PVR was less than 200 mL, the patient was given an additional 1 hour to spontaneously void 200 mL by 6 hours after the surgery. Patients who failed the void trial were discharged home with a transurethral catheter. 

The primary outcome was time to discharge, and the sample size (153 participants included in the analysis) allowed 80% power to detect a 30-minute difference in time to discharge. Participant baseline characteristics, concomitant procedures, and indication for hysterectomy were similar for both groups. 

Results. The mean time to discharge was 273.4 minutes for the backfill-assisted void trial group and 283.2 minutes for the spontaneous fill group, a difference of 9.8 minutes that was not statistically significant (P = .45). 

Although it was not a primary outcome, time to spontaneous void was 24.9 minutes shorter in the backfill group (P = .04). Rates of postoperative voiding dysfunction did not differ between the 2 groups (6.7% for the backfill group and 12.8% for the spontaneous fill group; P = .2). There were no significant differences in emergency department visits, UTI rates, or readmissions. 

Bladder backfill is safe, simple, and may reduce time to spontaneous void 

Strengths of the study included its prospective randomized design, blinded outcome assessors, and diversity in benign gynecologic surgeries performed. Although this study found a reduced time to spontaneous void in the backfill group, it was not powered to assess this difference, limiting ability to draw conclusions from those data. Data on postoperative nausea and pain scores also were not collected, which likely influenced the overall time to discharge. 

Void trial completion is one of many criteria to fulfill prior to patient discharge, and a reduced time to first void may not decrease the overall length of PACU stay if other factors, such as nausea or pain, are not controlled. Nonetheless, backfilling the bladder intraoperatively is a safe alternative that may decrease the time to first spontaneous void, and it is a relatively simple alteration in the surgical workflow that could significantly lessen PACU nursing demands.

Continue to: Algorithm assesses need for PVR, although further study required...

Algorithm assesses need for PVR, although further study required 

Meekins AR, Siddiqui N, Amundsen CL, et al. Improving postoperative efficiency: an algorithm for expedited void trials after urogynecologic surgery. South Med J. 2017;110:785-790. 

To determine ways to further maximize postoperative efficiency, Meekins and colleagues sought to determine whether certain voided volumes during backfill-assisted void trials could obviate the need for PVR assessment. 

Void trial results calculated to develop algorithm 

The study was a secondary analysis of a previously conducted RCT that assessed antibiotics for the prevention of UTI after urogynecologic surgery. Void trials from the parent RCT were performed via the backfill-assisted method in which the bladder was backfilled in the PACU with 300 mL of normal saline or until the patient reported urgency to void, after which the catheter was removed and the patient was prompted to void immediately. 

Postvoid residual levels were assessed via ultrasonography or catheterization. A void trial was considered to be passed when a PVR was less than 100 mL or less than 50% of the total bladder volume, with a minimum voided volume of 200 mL. 

In the follow-up study, the authors analyzed the void trial results of 255 women of the original 264 in the parent RCT. A total of 69% of patients passed their void trial. The authors assessed the optimal positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) combinations, which were then used to create lower and upper voided volume thresholds that would best predict a failed or passed trial, thus obviating PVR measurement. 

Results. When patients voided less than 100 mL, the NPV was 96.7% (meaning that they had a 96.7% chance of failing the void trial). When patients voided 200 mL or more, the PPV was 97% (meaning that they had a 97% chance of passing the void trial). Receiver operating characteristic analysis confirmed that voided volume alone was an excellent predictor of final void trial results, with area under the curve of 0.97. The authors estimated that applying this algorithm to their study population would have eliminated the need for assessing PVR in 85% of patients. Ultimately, they proposed the algorithm shown in TABLE 1. 

A potential alternative for assessing PVR 

This study's strengths include the use of prospectively and systematically collected void trial data in a large patient population undergoing various urogynecologic procedures. By contrast, the generalizability of the results is limited regarding other void trial methods, such as spontaneous filling and void, as well as populations outside of the studied institution. 

With the algorithm, the authors estimated that the majority of postoperative patients would no longer require a PVR assessment in the PACU. This could have beneficial downstream implications, including decreasing the nursing workload, reducing total time in the PACU, and minimizing patient discomfort with PVR assessment. 

While further studies are needed to validate the proposed algorithm in larger populations, this study provides evidence of an efficient alternative to the traditional approach to PVR assessment in the PACU.

Continue to: An alternative to Foley use if a patient does not know CISC...

An alternative to Foley use if a patient does not know CISC 

Boyd SS, O'Sullivan DM, Tunitsky-Bitton E. A comparison of two methods of catheter management after pelvic reconstructive surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134:1037-1045. 

The traditional indwelling catheter as a postoperative bladder drainage method has a number of drawbacks, including an increased rate of UTI, patient discomfort, and potential limitations in mobility due to the presence of a drainage bag.⁵ 

Boyd and colleagues reported on a variation of traditional transurethral catheterization that hypothetically allows for improved mobility. With this method, the transurethral catheter is occluded with a plastic plug that is intermittently plugged and unplugged (plug-unplug method) for bladder drainage. To test whether activity levels are improved with the plug-unplug method versus the continuous drainage approach, the authors conducted an RCT in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery to compare the plug-unplug method with transurethral catheterization (with a continuous drainage bag) and a reference group of freely voiding women. 

Study particulars and outcomes 

The trial's primary outcome was the patients' activity score as measured by the Activity Assessment Scale (AAS) at 5 to 7 days postoperatively. Because of the theoretically increased risk of a UTI with opening and closing a closed drainage system, secondary outcomes included the UTI rate, the time to pass an outpatient void trial, postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, and catheter effect. To detect an effect size of 0.33 in the primary outcome between the 3 groups, 90 participants were needed along with a difference in proportions of 0.3 between the catheterized and noncatheterized groups. 

The participants were randomly assigned 1:1 preoperatively to the continuous drainage or plug-unplug method. All patients underwent a backfill-assisted void trial prior to hospital discharge; the first 30 randomly assigned patients to pass their void trial comprised the reference group. Patients in the plug-unplug arm were instructed to uncap the plastic plug to drain their bladder when they felt the urge to void or at least every 4 hours. All catheterized patients were provided with a large drainage bag for gravity-based drainage for overnight use. 

Participants who were discharged home with a catheter underwent an outpatient void trial between postoperative days 5 and 7. A urinalysis was performed at that time and a urine culture was done if a patient reported UTI symptoms. All patients underwent routine follow-up until they passed the office void trial. 

Results. Ninety-three women were included in the primary analysis. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between groups. No difference was detected in activity by AAS scores between all 3 groups (scores: plug-unplug, 70.3; continuous drainage, 67.7; reference arm, 79.4; P = .09). The 2 treatment arms had no overall difference in culture-positive UTI (plug-unplug, 68.8%; continuous drainage, 48.4%; P = .625). No significant difference was found in the percentage of patients who passed their initial outpatient void trial (plug-unplug, 71.9%, vs continuous drainage, 58.1%; P = .25) (TABLE 2).

Catheter impact on postoperative activity considered 

Strengths of the study include the prospective randomized design, the inclusion of a noncatheterized reference arm, and use of a validated questionnaire to assess activity. The study was limited, however, by the inability to blind patients to treatment and the lack of power to assess other important outcomes, such as UTI rates. 

Although the authors did not find a difference in activity scores between the 2 catheterization methods, no significant difference was found between the catheterized and noncatheterized groups, which suggests that catheters in general may not significantly impact postoperative activity. The theoretical concern that opening and closing a transurethral drainage system would increase UTI rates was not substantiated, although the study was not powered specifically for this outcome. 

Ultimately, the plug-unplug method may be a safe alternative for patients who desire to avoid attachment to a drainage bag postoperatively. 

Continue to: Does antibiotic prophylaxis reduce UTI for patients catheter-managed postoperatively? 

Does antibiotic prophylaxis reduce UTI for patients catheter-managed postoperatively? 

Lavelle ES, Alam P, Meister M, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis during catheter-managed postoperative urinary retention after pelvic reconstructive surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134:727-735. 

Limited high-quality evidence supports the use of prophylactic antibiotics during catheterization following prolapse or incontinence surgery, and the Infectious Disease Society of America cautions against routine antibiotic prophylaxis for those requiring catheterization.¹¹ 

Lavelle and colleagues conducted a multicenter RCT to determine whether nitrofurantoin is more effective than placebo in decreasing UTIs among patients with postoperative voiding dysfunction following surgery for prolapse or incontinence. 

Focus of the study 

The investigators conducted a double-blind RCT at 5 academic sites that included women with postoperative voiding dysfunction who required catheter management (transurethral indwelling catheter or CISC). Voiding dysfunction was diagnosed by backfill or spontaneous fill void trial and was defined as a PVR of greater than 100 mL. Women were randomly assigned 1:1 to nitrofurantoin 100 mg or placebo taken daily during catheter use. Catheter use was discontinued once an outpatient void trial confirmed efficient voiding. 

The primary outcome was symptomatic culture-confirmed UTI within 6 weeks of surgery. Secondary outcomes included frequency of urine cultures with nitrofurantoin-resistant or intermediate-sensitivity isolates and adverse symptoms possibly related to nitrofurantoin. The authors calculated that 154 participants would provide 80% power to detect a decrease in UTI incidence from 33% to 13%, allowing for 10% dropout. 

A total of 151 women were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. There were no differences in baseline characteristics. The median duration of catheter use was 4 days (interquartile range, 3-7). 

Results. Overall, 13 women in the nitrofurantoin group and 13 in the placebo group experienced the primary outcome of UTI within 6 weeks postoperatively (17.3% nitrofurantoin vs 17.1% placebo; P = .97; relative risk [RR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-2.04). The number needed to treat with nitrofurantoin to prevent 1 UTI was 500. A subanalysis found no difference in UTI incidence stratified by CISC versus indwelling catheter. 

Urine cultures were obtained for 94.5% of all patients reporting UTI symptoms. Four isolates of the 13 cultures in the nitrofurantoin group (30.8%) and 3 in the placebo group (21.4%) showed nitrofurantoin resistance (P = .58). The rate of endorsing at least 1 adverse symptom attributable to nitrofurantoin was similar between groups (68.0% vs 60.5%, respectively; P = .34). 

Study strong points and limitations 

This study's randomized, placebo-controlled design and multicenter recruitment increase the generalizability of the results. An additional strength is that the authors chose a clinically relevant definition of UTI. The study was likely underpowered, however, to detect differences in secondary outcomes, such as nitrofurantoin resistance. We cannot conclude on the role of antibiotics for patients who require more prolonged catheterization. 

Notably, a similar RCT by Dieter and colleagues of 159 patients undergoing daily nitrofurantoin versus placebo during CISC or transurethral catheterization failed to detect a difference in the rate of UTI treatment up to 3 weeks postoperatively with nitrofurantoin prophylaxis.¹² 

Ultimately, the study by Lavelle and colleagues contributes to a growing body of evidence that supports the avoidance of antibiotic prophylaxis during short-term postoperative catheterization.