Characterizing patient experiences with repeat artificial urinary sphincter revisions through quantitative surveys and qualitative patient interviews.

Background: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement remains the gold-standard treatment for post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI), despite their need for periodic surgical revision. Objective: To understand the experiences of patients who undergo repeat AUS revisions. Design: Mixed design including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews for thematic analysis. Methods: Men with ⩾2 revisions were collected from a single-institution, retrospective database of AUS patients. Participants were interviewed about their prostatectomy, incontinence, AUS placement, and revisions. A survey was administered utilizing validated tools (e.g., Decision Regret Scale (DRS), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7) for quantitative analysis. Interview transcripts were used for qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Of 26 respondents, 20 completed the interview. Twenty-three men completed the survey. The mean DRS score for prostatectomy was 24 (standard deviation (SD) = 27), indicating low regret. Median Incontinence Impact Questionnaire score was 54 (SD = 27), with 70% of participants describing their PPUI as "severe." Participants experienced a significant decrease in daily pad usage with AUS placement (5.5 pre-AUS vs 1.4 post-AUS, p < 0.0001). Qualitative analysis revealed themes involving prostatectomy urgency, physician-patient relationships, expectation setting, and quality of follow-up. Most participants (96%) were satisfied with their initial AUS placement and endorsed a positive relationship with their urologist. However, 22% of participants were unaware of device limitations, including the need for revision. Some participants (26%) were uncertain of the status of their AUS, while some participants (35%) desired improved follow-up. Conclusions: Initial improvement and positive experiences with urologists motivate patients to undergo AUS repeat revision. Urologists should emphasize the limitations of the AUS before placement and follow up with patients to evaluate their needs for future care.

Association between Previous Pelvic Radiation and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Failure of Replacement Artificial Urinary Sphincters.

PURPOSE: In order to accurately characterize how a history of radiation therapy affects the lifespan of replacement artificial urinary sphincters (AUSs), all possible sources of device failure must be considered. We assessed the competing risks of device failure based on radiation history in men with replacement AUSs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men who had a replacement AUS in a single institutional, retrospective database. To assess survival from all-cause device failure based on radiation history and other factors, we conducted Kaplan-Meier, Cox proportional-hazards and competing risks analyses. RESULTS: Among 247 men who had a first replacement AUS, men with a history of radiation had shorter time to all-cause device failure (median 1.4 vs 3.5 years for men with radiation vs without radiation history, p=0.02). On multivariable Cox-proportional hazards analysis, previous radiation was associated with increased risk of all-cause device failure (HR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.30-3.43, p=0.002). On multivariable cause-specific hazards analysis, prior radiation was associated with a higher risk of erosion/infection (HR: 7.57, 95% CI: 2.27-25.2, p <0.001), but was not associated with risk of urethral atrophy (p=0.5) or mechanical failure (p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Among men with a replacement AUS, a history of pelvic radiation was associated with shorter time to device failure of any cause. Radiation was also specifically associated with a sevenfold increase in the risk of erosion or infection of replacement AUS, but not with urethral atrophy or mechanical failure. Patients with a replacement AUS should be appropriately counseled on how radiation history may impact outcomes of future revisions.

Diagnostic performance of the RSNA-proposed classification for COVID-19 pneumonia versus pre-pandemic controls.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) classification system for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia compared to pre-pandemic chest computed tomography (CT) scan images to mitigate the risk of bias regarding the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional, diagnostic test accuracy study. Chest CT scans, carried out from May 1 to June 30, 2020, and from May 1 to July 17, 2017, were consecutively selected for the COVID-19 (positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR] for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 result) and control (pre-pandemic) groups, respectively. Four expert thoracic radiologists blindly interpreted each CT scan image. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 160 chest CT scan images were included: 79 in the COVID-19 group (56 [43.5-67] years old, 41 men) and 81 in the control group (62 [52-72] years old, 44 men). Typically, an estimated specificity of 98.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 98.1%-98.4%) was obtained. For the indeterminate classification as a diagnostic threshold, an estimated sensitivity of 88.3% (95% CI 84.7%-91.7%) and a specificity of 79.0% (95% CI 74.5%-83.4%), with an area under the curve of 0.865 (95% CI 0.838-0.895), were obtained. CONCLUSION: The RSNA classification system shows strong diagnostic accuracy for COVID-19 pneumonia, even against pre-pandemic controls. It can be an important aid in clinical decision-making, especially when a typical or indeterminate pattern is found, possibly advising retesting following an initial negative RT-PCR result and streamlining early management and isolation.

Diagnostic performance of the RSNA-proposed classification for COVID-19 pneumonia versus pre-pandemic controls

Abstract Objective To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) classification system for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia compared to pre-pandemic chest computed tomography (CT) scan images to mitigate the risk of bias regarding the reference standard. Materials and methods This was a retrospective, cross-sectional, diagnostic test accuracy study. Chest CT scans, carried out from May 1 to June 30, 2020, and from May 1 to July 17, 2017, were consecutively selected for the COVID-19 (positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR] for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 result) and control (pre-pandemic) groups, respectively. Four expert thoracic radiologists blindly interpreted each CT scan image. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Results A total of 160 chest CT scan images were included: 79 in the COVID-19 group (56 [43.5-67] years old, 41 men) and 81 in the control group (62 [52-72] years old, 44 men). Typically, an estimated specificity of 98.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 98.1%-98.4%) was obtained. For the indeterminate classification as a diagnostic threshold, an estimated sensitivity of 88.3% (95% CI 84.7%-91.7%) and a specificity of 79.0% (95% CI 74.5%-83.4%), with an area under the curve of 0.865 (95% CI 0.838-0.895), were obtained. Conclusion The RSNA classification system shows strong diagnostic accuracy for COVID-19 pneumonia, even against pre-pandemic controls. It can be an important aid in clinical decision-making, especially when a typical or indeterminate pattern is found, possibly advising retesting following an initial negative RT-PCR result and streamlining early management and isolation.