Which renal access technique for PCNL is more difficult to teach using simulation?

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a challenging procedure that urology trainees should be familiar with during residency. Simulators, such as the PERC Mentor, allow the development of this competency in a safer, stress-free environment. There are two primary fluoroscopic methods of gaining percutaneous renal access: the triangulation method and the bull's eye method. Our goal was to assess which method is easier to teach novices by using the PERC Mentor simulator. A secondary goal was to assess differences in subjective and objective outcomes. METHODS: Fifteen simulator and procedure-naive medical trainees were randomized into two groups using a crossover, randomized study design. Participants were provided with written, video, in-person demonstrations and hands-on practice for each technique. They then performed each method and were assessed objectively using the PERC Mentor performance data report and subjectively using the PCNL global rating scale (GRS) scoring system. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's T-test and non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the outcomes and complication rates between the two methods. The bull's eye method of obtaining percutaneous access was associated with a significant decrease in operative time (91 seconds vs. 128 seconds, p=0.03) and fluoroscopy time (87 seconds vs. 123 seconds, p=0.03) compared to the triangulation method. CONCLUSIONS: Teaching of both techniques was equally well acquired by students. Both techniques had similar outcomes; however, the bull's eye method was associated with less operative and fluoroscopy time when compared to the triangulation method among novices.

Renal actinomycosis presenting as uro-cutaneous fistula.

Renal actinomycosis is a rare clinical entity. Diagnosis is usually made after resection. A 36-year-old male presented with uro-cutaneous fistula and left xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis. He was offered left open radical nephrectomy. Intra-operatively, there was "woody" inflammation of the left kidney fistulizing to the splenic flexure of the colon. We successfully resected it and a segment of the colon that had fistulized. His tissue cultures grew Actinomyces odontolyticus. Post-operatively, he received 6 weeks of intravenous beta-lactam antibiotic. He recovered well without any complications. In conclusion, renal actinomycosis can be challenging to diagnose, operate and eradicate. Perioperative considerations are presented for successful management.

Circle nephrostomy tube revisited.

INTRODUCTION: There are few options for patients requiring chronic urinary drainage using nephrostomy tubes. Although circle nephrostomy tube (CNT) was invented in 1954, it is rarely used. Its advantages include longer indwelling time such that it is changed semi-annually when compared with the standard nephrostomy tube (SNT), which is changed monthly. However, there are no studies comparing indwelling times and costs with these two tubes. The aim of the present study was to compare CNT with SNT in terms of frequency of tube changes, reasons for earlier tube changes, and associated costs. METHODS: Patients who had CNT inserted between 2009 and 2015 were reviewed. The indications for chronic indwelling nephrostomy tubes were tabulated. The frequency of tube changes was compared between CNT and SNT in the same patients. Furthermore, costs associated with insertion and exchange of CNT and SNT were analyzed. RESULTS: Seven patients with mean age of 71.9 ± 7.6 years (range 43-96) had a total of 36 CNT changes. The mean number of CNT changes was four (range 2-5) at a mean interval of 168.3 ± 15.6 days (range 120-231). All patients had SNT prior to converting to CNT. When compared with the mean interval for SNT changes, the mean interval for CNT changes was significantly longer (44.8 ± 19.4 vs. 168.3 ± 41.3 days; p=0.028). Tube blockage and urinary leakage were the most common reasons for earlier than scheduled CNT changes. In our centre, CNT insertion and exchange cost $1965.48 and $923.96 compared with $1450.43 and $803.81 for SNT, respectively. There was an estimated cost savings of $46 861.10 (range $87 414.30 -$40 553.20) for the whole cohort by switching from SNTs to CNTs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the small sample size as the main limitation, this study confirms that CNTs are associated with significantly fewer changes and lower cost when compared with SNTs for poor-surgical-risk patients requiring chronic NTs.