A Non-Narcotic Pathway for the Management of Postoperative Pain Following Pediatric Robotic Pyeloplasty.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is twofold: first, to describe the non-narcotic pathway (NNP) for the management of postoperative pain after robotic pyeloplasty (RP); second, to compare perioperative outcomes for children undergoing RP whose postoperative pain was managed with and without the NNP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 96 consecutive patients from October 2011 to December 2015 who underwent RP by three primary surgeons at a single pediatric institution. Children managed with an NNP received alternating doses of scheduled intravenous acetaminophen and ketorolac every 3 hours throughout the postoperative course. Perioperative outcomes were compared after grouping patients according to the type of postoperative pain management pathway. Continuous variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test, and categorical variables were compared using the two-tailed chi-squared test. RESULTS: A total of 49 (51.0%) patients were managed with the NNP, and 47 (49.0%) patients were managed without the NNP. A larger proportion of patients in the NNP did not receive postoperative narcotic medications (71.4% vs 25.5%; p < 0.001). Patients in the NNP were administered less narcotics (median 0.000 mg vs 0.041 mg morphine equivalents/kg/day; p < 0.001) and had a shorter length of stay (median 1.0 day vs 2.0 days; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with postoperative complications (p = 0.958) or surgical success (p = 0.958). CONCLUSIONS: An NNP following pediatric RP is a viable and effective analgesic regimen that is associated with less narcotic use. It may also facilitate a shorter hospital stay. The majority of patients managed with this pathway had adequate pain control without being subject to the potential adverse effects of narcotic medications.

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature from 1998 to 2012.

PURPOSE: Systematic reviews synthesize the current best evidence to address a clinical question. Given the growing emphasis on evidence-based clinical practice, systematic reviews are being increasingly sought after and published. We previously reported limitations in the methodological quality of 57 individual systematic reviews published from 1998 to 2008. We provide an update to our previous study, adding systematic reviews published from 2009 to 2012. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed® and hand searched the table of contents of 4 major urological journals to identify systematic reviews related to questions of prevention and therapy. Two independent reviewers with prior formal evidence-based medicine training assessed the methodological quality using the validated 11-point AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) instrument. We performed predefined statistical hypothesis testing for differences by publication period (1998 to 2008 vs 2009 to 2012) and journal of publication. We performed statistical testing using SPSS®, version 23.0 with a 2-sided α of 0.05 using the Student t-test, ANOVA and the chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 113 systematic reviews published from 2009 to 2012 met study inclusion criteria. The most common topics were oncology (44 reviews or 38.9%), voiding dysfunction (26 or 23.0%) and stones/endourology (13 or 11.5%). The largest contributor was European Urology (46 reviews or 40.7%), followed by BJU International (31 or 27.4%) and The Journal of Urology® (22 or 19.5%). The mean ± SD AMSTAR score for the 2009 to 2012 period was 5.3 ± 2.3 compared to 4.8 ± 2.0 for 1998 to 2008 with a mean difference of 0.5 (95% CI 0.2 to 1.2, p = 0.133). CONCLUSIONS: While the number of systematic reviews published in the urological literature has increased substantially, the methodological quality of these studies remains suboptimal. Systematic review authors and editors should make every effort to adhere to well established methodological standards to enhance the impact of their research efforts.

A rare metastasis to the bladder.

Primary bladder cancer is the fifth most common malignancy but secondary malignancies of the bladder are rare. Distinguishing primary adenocarcinomas of the bladder from secondary adenocarcinomas is difficult and relies on immunohistochemical staining. Prostate, colorectal, breast, and lung all can produce metastatic adenocarcinomas to the bladder. Further management of the malignancy varies depending on the source, thus making proper diagnosis critical. We present only the fifth documented case of metastatic adenocarcinoma of the lung to bladder and performed a review of the literature.