Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum for Peyronie's disease: a contemporary atlas of complications and their management.

INTRODUCTION: Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (CCH) remains the only Food and Drug Administration-approved medical treatment for Peyronie's disease (PD). The initial IMPRESS I and II trials (Investigation for Maximal Peyronie's Reduction Efficacy and Safety), which led to Food and Drug Administration approval, revealed a rate of treatment-related adverse events as high as 84%. Studies fail to provide clear definitions of complications. OBJECTIVES: To review complications, provide a CCH complication atlas, and propose management strategies for commonly encountered complications. METHODS: We performed a literature review using PubMed. A photographic atlas was provided regarding complications in patients in a high-volume CCH center for PD. RESULTS: Complications were identified and classified by nature and severity. We followed a standardized previously published grading system for hematomas. Complications include bruising, swelling, hematoma formation, back pain, and, rarely, corporal rupture. Complications were discussed, and hematomas were graded by penile surface area. Complication photographs were graded and displayed. Treatment-related adverse effects do not affect overall results. CONCLUSION: Recognizing and grading complications associated with CCH therapy for PD is crucial for effective patient management and informed decision making. A standardized grading system allows for consistency in reporting and comparing hematoma complication rates across studies and patient populations. Herein we provide images that will help clinicians identify and confidently manage common complications that may occur in any CCH program.

Epididymectomy Is an Effective Treatment for Chronic Epididymal Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic scrotal pain is difficult to manage, and epididymectomy is a treatment option for a subset of men with pain localized to the epididymis. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of epididymectomy at our institution. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2020, 225 men underwent epididymectomy at our institution for pain localized to the epididymis and not part of a greater constellation of pelvic pain or urinary symptoms. Our primary outcome measure was change in pain after epididymectomy, categorized as cured/improved or no change/worsened. Multivariable logistic regression compared the impact of pain duration, and surgical and psychiatric histories on postoperative pain. RESULTS: Patients in both outcome categories-cured/improved and no change/worsened-were similar in age and BMI. Overall, 162 patients (72%) reported cured/improved pain at the last documented follow-up visit. Median follow-up time was 12 (IQR 1-364) weeks. About half of the cohort (n = 117, 52%) had a prior vasectomy, and there was no difference in outcome based on vasectomy history on multivariate analysis (OR 0.625, P = .3). Men with pain duration > 1 year (OR 0.46, P = .03), diagnosed psychiatric conditions (OR 0.44, P = .04), or prior scrotal/inguinal/abdominal surgeries other than vasectomy (OR 0.47, P = .03) had decreased odds of pain relief after epididymectomy. CONCLUSIONS: This 20-year analysis is the largest review of postepididymectomy outcomes reported. Among carefully screened men, 72% had resolution or improvement of scrotal pain. Epididymectomy is most effective for men with < 1 year of focal epididymal pain, with no history of psychiatric conditions or scrotal/inguinal/abdominal surgery other than vasectomy.

Potential primary prevention of Peyronie's disease post prostatectomy?-retrospective analysis of peri-operative multi-modal penile rehabilitation.

The surgical management of prostate cancer through radical prostatectomy has the potential to impact patients' sexual function, including erectile dysfunction and Peyronie's disease (PD). Historical data suggests the incidence of PD in post-prostatectomy patients is higher than in the general population at 15.9%. Our study objective was to measure the rate of the development of PD among patients that receive penile rehabilitation (PR) regimen prior to and immediately after radical prostatectomy. In this study, we retrospectively reviewed the charts of 581 patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer, treated with radical prostatectomy, and engaged in a PR program. Patients with the diagnosis of PD prior to prostatectomy were excluded from this study. The PR program consists of daily tadalafil, L-citrulline, and weekly vacuum erectile device with the option of intracavernosal injections if patients fail to respond to the regular regimen. We found the incidence of PD to be 2.9%, suggesting that PR regimens programs may be associated with a reduced incidence of PD in post-prostatectomy patients. Ten (out of 17) patients were diagnosed with PD after 2 years of follow up. The return of erections was not statistically different among patients who developed PD and the rest of the patients. Prospective, multi-institutional trials will be required to elucidate whether PR can prevent the development of PD in this patient population.

The Lack of a Physical Exam During New Patient Telehealth Visits Does Not Impact Plans for Office and Operating Room Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how the lack of a physical examination during new patient video visits can impact urological surgery planning during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 590 consecutive urology patients who underwent new patient video visits from March through May 2020 at a single academic center. Our primary outcome was procedural plan concordance, the proportion of video visit surgical plans that remained the same after the patient was seen in-person, either in clinic or on day of surgery. Median days between video and in-person visits were compared between concordant and discordant cases using the Mann-Whitney U test; P < .05 was significant. RESULTS: Overall, 195 (33%) were evaluated by new patient video visits and had a procedure scheduled, of which, 186 (95%) had concordant plans after in-person evaluation. Further, 99% of plans for in-office procedures and 91% for operating room procedures were unchanged. Four patients (2.1%) had surgical plans altered after changes in clinical course, two (1%) due to additional imaging, and three (1.5%) based on genitourinary examination findings. Days between video visit and in-person evaluation did not differ significantly in concordant cases (median 37.5 [IQR, 16 - 80.5]) as compared to discordant cases (median 58.0 [IQR, 20 - 224]; P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: Most surgical plans developed during new patient video visits remain unchanged after in-person examination. However, changes in clinical course or updated imaging can alter operative plans. Likewise, certain urologic conditions (eg, penile cancer) rely on the genitourinary examination to dictate surgical approach.

Understanding the Barriers to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Quality Improvement Initiative.

PURPOSE: Utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer remains low. We sought to understand our practice of NAC use in order to design a quality improvement initiative geared towards optimizing medical oncology referral. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 339 patients with ≥cT2 bladder cancer treated with radical cystectomy between 2012-2017 at our institution. We assessed the rate of referral to medical oncology, rate of NAC administration, as well as medical, patient and provider variables associated with NAC use. Bayesian logistic regression modeling identified variables associated with NAC use and chart review provided granular patient-level data. RESULTS: 85% (n=289) of patients were referred to medical oncology and 62.5% (n=212) received NAC. Renal insufficiency, hearing loss, and treating urologist were conclusively associated with lower odds of NAC use. 46 patients were not referred to medical oncology and 50% of these had medical contraindications to cisplatin cited as the reason for no referral. 38 patients met with medical oncology but did not receive NAC. 30 (79%) had comorbidities that impacted this decision with 15 (39%) ineligible based on impaired renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relatively high rates of medical oncology referral and NAC use in this cohort, there are still opportunities to improve the efficiency of this practice. Quality improvement initiatives could optimize the referral of patients with ≥T2 bladder cancer for consideration of cisplatin-based NAC and establish an important quality metric in the management of these patients.

Video Visits as a Substitute for Urological Clinic Visits.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether video visits were being used as substitutes to clinic visits prior to COVID-19 at our institution's outpatient urology centers. METHODS: We reviewed 600 established patient video visits completed by 13 urology providers at a tertiary academic center in southeast Michigan. We compared these visits to a random, stratified sample of established patient clinic visits. We assessed baseline demographics and visit characteristics for both groups. We defined our primary outcome ("revisit rate") as the proportion of additional healthcare evaluation (ie, office, emergency room, hospitalization) by a urology provider within 30 days of the initial encounter. RESULTS: Patients seen by video visit tended to be younger (51 vs 61 years, P <.001), would have to travel further for a clinic appointment (82 vs 68 miles, P <.001), and were more likely to be female (36 vs 28%, P = .001). The most common diagnostic groups evaluated through video visits were nephrolithiasis (40%), oncology (18%) and andrology (14.3%). While the 30-day revisit rates were higher for clinic visits (4.3% vs 7.5%, P = .01) primarily due to previously scheduled appointments, revisits due to medical concerns were similar across both groups (0.5% vs 0.67%; P = .60). CONCLUSIONS: Video visits can be used to deliver care across a broad range of urologic diagnoses and can serve as a substitute for clinic visits.