Usability and safety of the new 5 French air-charged catheter for performing urodynamic studies on pediatric patients.

AIMS: To assess the performance and safety of the T-DOC® 5 French air-charged urodynamic catheters in pediatric patients and obtain feedback from providers related to usability performance. METHODS: Patients ages 12 years and younger undergoing urodynamics were prospectively recruited from two institutions. The T-DOC® 5 French air-charged catheters were used. Issues with catheter placement, adverse events (AEs), and pain scores were assessed. A follow-up telephone call was made to assess for post-urodynamic AEs. Providers completed a clinical user questionnaire. Likert scale was used (1 = most negative and 5 = most positive response) and reported in mean (range). RESULTS: A total of 28 patients completed the study. The mean age was 55 months (5-130) (10 females, 18 males). One problem was noted with the insertion of an abdominal catheter, secondary to stool impaction. Catheters stayed in place on all subjects, except for one related to patient hyperactivity. There were no AEs during the studies. In total four reported post-urodynamics AEs (one hematochezia, three dysuria). Among nine patients, pain level on the bladder and abdominal insertion was 3.6/10 (0-10) and 3.1/10 (0-10). Five providers completed the questionnaire. The overall ease of use was rated 4.3/5 (3-5). The ease of insertion was 4.1/5 (2-5) and set-up/clean-up time was 4.4/5 (3-5). Tracing stability, subtraction accuracy, and artifact sensitivity were all perceived favorably (respectively 4.8/5 [4-5], 4.6/5 [4-5], and 4.4/5 [4-5]). CONCLUSIONS: The T-DOC® 5 French air-charged catheter was considered safe and effective in pediatric patients. No AEs occurred during the studies. Providers, using the catheters, reported favorably on catheter usage.

Bridging the Gap-Building Surgical Subspecialty Telemedicine Clinics in the Rural Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Pediatric urology is a much-needed subspecialty with a breadth of complex disorders that can often prove challenging to diagnose and manage. Exacerbating this need is the minimal exposure medical trainees receive to pediatric urology. Pediatric urology arrived in West Virginia in 1983 but the subspecialty has been inconsistently represented since then. Currently there are 2 fellowship-trained pediatric urologists in the state of West Virginia, which has an area of approximately 24,038 square miles. We review our experience with the use of telemedicine in providing outreach to the wider parts of our medically underserved state and ultimately evaluate its efficacy from a patient-centric cost analysis and diagnosis concordance perspective. We hypothesized that the use of telemedicine would be cost and time-effective for patients in our rural state. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our series of patients presenting from outside telemedicine "referral centers" in Martinsburg, Parkersburg and Wheeling for pediatric urological consultation. We evaluated reason for consultation, geographic driving distance, drive time and travel cost saved from telemedicine consultation. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients presented to outside designated telemedicine centers from August 2018 to April 2020. The mean driving time saved utilizing telemedicine consultation was 4 hours and 46 minutes, and mean driving distance saved was 299.8 miles. Travel costs saved in terms of fuel averaged $173.88 per patient. The most common reason for consultation was undescended testis, followed by recurrent urinary tract infection and nocturnal enuresis. Of the 23 patients who required surgery, only 2 (8.7%) had an initial diagnosis that was not concordant with their operating room examination. CONCLUSIONS: While modest, our data indicate a modern solution to a historical need in our state. Our high diagnosis concordance rate (91.3%) shows that a well-trained advanced practice provider can adequately perform an operative evaluation via telemedicine.