Abstract Background: As the evidence has been increasing about the post-micturition dribble (PMD) symptom, widely accepted lower-urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) questionnaires fail to assess PMD alone. In this study, our primary aim is to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Hallym Post Micturition Dribble Questionnaire (Turkish HPMDQ). The secondary objective is to appraise the relationship between PMD and other LUTS and the effectiveness of bulbar urethral massage in patients with PMD. Methods: The English version of HPMDQ went through a multi-stage translation process. The final draft of the Turkish HPMDQ and IPSS were queried to male patients who admitted to the urology outpatient clinic between June 2020 and September 2020. The responses of 103 patients who satisfy the inclusion criteria were analysed. 55 people suffering from PMD were offered bulbar urethral massage for one month and then re-applied with the questionnaires. Results: The kappa coefficient for the total score for the Turkish HPMDQ was 0.789. Considering the relationship between the HPMDQ and the IPSS, the HPMDQ’s total score correlated significantly with that of the total IPSS (ρ: 0.660, p < 0.001), the voiding symptoms of the LUTS (ρ: 0.621, p < 0.001), and post-void residual volume (ρ: 0.614, p < 0.001) but not with the storage symptoms of the LUTS (p=0.245). The mean value of HPMDQ-Q5, evaluating the treatment response of bulbar urethra massage, was 1.81+1.02, suggesting an effective treatment of PMD. Conclusions: The Turkish version of HPMDQ was observed as a reliable tool for evaluating patients with PMD. This study also showed that bulbar urethral massage is an effective method to relieve PMD. Keywords: Post-micturition dribble, questionnaire, Turkish validation, incontinence

Purpose: To evaluate the awareness of the use of fluoroscopy in endourological procedures, as well as the theoretical and practical applications of preventive measures. Material and Method: Between May 2018 - April 2019, a 26-question survey prepared using Google Docs was sent to urologists via e-mail. Personal information, radiation training and behaviors related to radiation and fluoroscopy usage, and the use of protective equipment were queried. Results: A total of 226 participants fully completed and returned the email survey. Of the 226 participants 78 (34,5%) were academics, 44 (19,4%) were residents while 104 (46.1%) were experts. More than 60% of the participants stated that they participated in the operation requiring less than five fluoroscopy-use per week. The majority of operations requiring fluoroscopy consisted of endourological procedures. The lead apron was used by 93% of the participants, but the use of protective glasses and gloves was very low (3.5%). The majority of academicians, experts and residents did not use dosimeters (76.9%, 82,7 and 81,8%, respectively). More than 50% of the participants did not have literature information about the harmful effects of radiation due to the use of fluoroscopy. The most common complaints on the day of fluoroscopy were fatigue and headache. Conclusion: The lack of information regarding the radiation protection measures and harmful effects of radiation are common among urologists in Turkey. Therefore, systematic training programs on fluoroscopy use and radiation exposure should be provided during urology residency. Keywords: Urologist, fluoroscopy, radiation, radiation protection