258 Participants completed the survey of which 257 could be included: 81.3% were urologists, 0% gynecologists, 12.8% were residents (not) in training, 3.9% were physician assistant or nurse practitioner, and 0.8% were classified as 'other'. Of these, respectively, 23.3%, 34.6%, 39.7%, and 1.9% worked in an academic, teaching, non-teaching hospital, or independent treatment center.
The majority primarily administered onabotulinumtoxinA (61.1% 100E, 20.2% 200E, 0.8% 300E, with 3.1% reporting both 100E and 200E), followed by abobotulinumtoxinA (11.7% 500E, 0.8% 1000E) and incobotulinumtoxinA (2 urologists).
Regarding the use of anesthesia (and type), antibiotic prophylaxis (and type), management of oral anticoagulation, and post-injection policies/monitoring, substantial variation in responses was observed (see Table ).
No antibiotic prophylaxis was administered by 35.6% of the respondents, while 36.4% were based their antibiotic choice on recent culture results, and standard antibiotic prophylaxis was utilized by 28.0% of respondents.
In the study, anticoagulation management varied; approximately 4.3% stopped all anticoagulation. The most common approach (67.1%) was to continue acetylsalicylic acid and cease stronger anticoagulants. In 14.9% of respondents, both Clopidogrel/Ticagrelor and stronger anticoagulants were stopped. Continuing direct oral anticoagulants while stopping stronger ones occurred in 3.5% of cases. Lastly, 10.2% continued Vitamin K antagonists.
Regarding anesthetic methods, lidocaine bladder installation was the predominant choice in the majority of respondents (72.3%). A smaller proportion of cases (13.3%) were performed in the operating room under general anesthesia or spinal anesthesia, while sedation was used in 9.4% of instances. Only a minority (2.3%) of cases proceeded without anesthesia or in the operation room with lidocaine bladder installation (0.8%). Additionally, in 2.0% of cases, more than one anesthetic method was employed.
Moreover, the study identified notable distinctions between respondents from the Netherlands and Belgium.
It's important to mention that there were fewer Belgian participants in the study (31 respondents, 12.1%), so we need to be careful when making strong conclusions about any big differences. Specifically, Belgian respondents did not employ abobotulinumtoxinA and administered lidocaine bladder installation less frequently than the Dutch respondents. Furthermore, patients in Belgium were more frequently admitted for standard day care treatment.
There was also a notable preference for physical appointments among Belgian participants, resulting in a comparatively lower frequency of telephone follow-ups.