A rare case of collecting duct renal cell carcinoma.

Collecting duct carcinoma is an exceptionally rare and aggressive form of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), representing between 0.4 and 1.8% of RCC cases. The most commonly affected demographic are young African-American males. Here, we present a rare case of collecting duct RCC in a 22 year-old Caucasian female with final pathological staging of pT1aN1 who underwent robot-assisted right radical nephrectomy, with peri-hilar and para-aortic lymph node dissection. Given her node-positivity, adjunctive treatment is discussed.

Do Flat Panel Detector C-Arms Decrease Radiation Exposure Compared to Conventional Image Intensifiers?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the radiation dose and image quality between flat panel detector (FPD) and traditional image intensifier (II) C-arms at their lowest radiation settings. METHODS: In a ureteroscopy simulation using a cadaver model, the radiation exposure was compared between FPD and II at 4 pulses-per-second (pps) using both low dose and automatic exposure control (AEC) settings. Additionally, the lowest dose settings for each machine were compared (4 pps with low dose in the FPD and 1 pps with low dose in the II). Five trials of 5 minutes were conducted for each setting. Four new optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters were used in each trial to record radiation exposure. Ten blinded urologists completed a survey rating image quality for each setting. RESULTS: When comparing the FPD and II at their lowest possible settings, the FPD produced significantly more radiation (P <.05). Using both machines at 4 pps in low dose mode resulted in no significant difference between C-arms (P >.05). Conversely, operating the C-arms at 4 pps and AEC resulted in significantly higher radiation exposure from the FPD compared to the II (P <.05). There was no significant difference in image quality at each setting. CONCLUSION: FPDs produce significantly more radiation at the lowest settings compared to IIs. Surgeons should employ IIs when reducing radiation exposure as low as possible is imperative, such as when operating on pediatric and pregnant patients.

Consideration in Microvascular Reconstruction during Times of Social Crises: Perspectives on Resource Utilization.

Reconstruction of head and neck surgical defects can be a complicated, costly process. While the era of cost-effective medicine has begun to broadly question the necessity of high-cost care, times of extraordinary sociomedical demand bring increased scrutiny to even routine costs and resource utilization. Within this context, we reviewed the advantages, drawbacks, and financial costs of both regional and free flap reconstructions, namely the decreased costs and hospital resource utilization that may be associated with reconstruction using regional flaps. Although beset by reports of partial necrosis in certain regional flaps-particularly the submental island, cervicofacial advancement, and supraclavicular artery island flaps-many reports have demonstrated complication and flap failure rates equivalent to those of free flaps. Additionally, regional flaps have been associated with decreased costs for hospital stay, most notably in cases of postoperative complications. In cases necessitating free flap reconstruction, cost-savings strategies such as bypassing postoperative intensive care unit admissions have been shown to provide satisfactory, safe outcomes. As the head and neck surgeon continues to adapt to the medical pressures of a global pandemic, resource-sparing approaches to oncologic care will persist in their newfound importance.