Ján Kliment
Aim: to provide information regarding trends in the development of urological surgery at the urological departments of the Slovak Republic in the years 2000-2010 and to assess whether those trends are in the context with the current state of European Urology. Material and methods: the number of procedures at various urological departments in Slovakia were analysed retrospectively. Data were processed from 20 urological departments. The basis for the evaluation was collected from annual reports from heads of urological departments. The work contains only the most important and most common procedures performed in a urology practice in Slovakia. Results: surgical procedures which were growing in numbers for the last 10 years: radical nephrectomy for renal tumour from transperitoneal (483 vs. 531) and lumbotomic approach (92 vs. 202), nephron-sparing operations for kidney cancer (15 vs. 130), transurethral resection of bladder tumours (1905 vs. 2010), radical prostatectomy (57 vs. 304), orchiectomy for cancer (190 vs. 238), adrenalectomy (44 vs. 68), kidney biopsy (50 vs. 153), suburethral tape (22 vs. 331), puncture nephrostomy (835 vs. 1028), prostate biopsy (966 vs. 2225), circumcision (1705 vs. 1996). Surgical procedures which numbers have not changed significantly: ureteroscopy with extraction of calculi (414 vs. 429), ureteroscopy with lithotripsy of stones (272 vs. 271), radical cystectomy with Bricker derivation by (38 vs. 40), radical cystectomy in women (10 vs. 9), ureterosigmoidostomy (12 vs. 10), partial amputation of the penis (26 vs. 26). Surgical procedures which numbers have decreased: ureteral reimplantation (112 vs. 68), transvesical prostatectomy (248 vs. 170), TUR for BPH (1826 vs. 1429), TUR for prostate cancer (362 vs. 259), orchidopexy (902 vs. 593), reconstructive surgery of hypospadias (160 vs. 101), surgery for varicocele (598 vs. 448), orchiectomy for prostate cancer (321 vs. 118). Conclusion: The analysis provides a picture of the performance of urology in Slovakia as well as suggestions for improvement in certain areas of urology. The analysis demonstrated that the development of surgical procedures in certain fields of urology is in the context with developments in other European countries. Lagging behind in some areas is mostly at the expense of lack of equipment at urology departments.