Online Marketing Practices Of Vasectomy Reversal

You have accessJournal of UrologyInfertility: Epidemiology & Evaluation I (MP21)1 Sep 2021MP21-10 ONLINE MARKETING PRACTICES OF VASECTOMY REVERSAL Masaya Jimbo, Francis Jefferson, Garrett Ungerer, Matthew Ziegelmann, Tobias Kohler, and Sevann Helo Masaya JimboMasaya Jimbo More articles by this author , Francis JeffersonFrancis Jefferson More articles by this author , Garrett UngererGarrett Ungerer More articles by this author , Matthew ZiegelmannMatthew Ziegelmann More articles by this author , Tobias KohlerTobias Kohler More articles by this author , and Sevann HeloSevann Helo More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002006.10AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Vasectomy reversal (VR) is rarely covered by insurance, creating a market similar to cosmetic surgery with direct marketing to patients. While cost is an immediate concern for patients, surgeon training and experience are essential for a successful outcome. Patients considering VR are likely to seek information online regarding providers and the nature of the procedure. In this study, we reviewed the characteristics of providers marketing VR online, as well as comprehensiveness of their website content. METHODS: We identified VR practices online in the top 50 metropolitan areas in the United States using Google. Practice websites were reviewed to obtain information including educational background, use of operating microscope, ability to perform vasoepididymostomy (VE) if indicated, procedural setting, surgical volume, literature or personal success rates, risks and alternatives of VR, and cost. RESULTS: Our search returned 107 VR practices including 29 (27%) academic and 78 (73%) private practices (Table 1). Providers were primarily male (98%) MDs (98%) with median age of 53. Most providers were urologists (93%) with fellowship training (58% andrology, 6% non-andrology). There was low reporting of surgical volume (33%), literature success rates (46%), personal success rates (21%), and risks (26%) and alternatives (30%) of VR. Academic practices were more likely to have an andrology fellowship-trained provider (97 vs. 44%, p<0.05) but less likely to disclose procedure cost (14 vs. 40%, p<0.05), compared to private practices (Table 2). We noted no differences between practice types in online ad use, use of operating microscope, ability to perform VE, mention of experience or success rates, or mention of risks and alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant lack of transparency and completeness of information among providers marketing VR online. Providers should consider implementation of measures to improve the dissemination of reliable information, such that patients can make informed decisions regarding VR. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e349-e350 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Masaya Jimbo More articles by this author Francis Jefferson More articles by this author Garrett Ungerer More articles by this author Matthew Ziegelmann More articles by this author Tobias Kohler More articles by this author Sevann Helo More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...