Delineating patient errors in an intracavernosal injection program.

BACKGROUND: Intracavernosal injection therapy (ICI) is a well-established therapeutic strategy for men with erectile dysfunction. Complications are often related to patient error when performong ICI. AIM: The objective of this study was to examine patient errors in an established patient training program for performing ICI and identify factors that could predict major errors. METHODS: Patients enrolled in our ICI program are trained on technical aspects, and dose titration is begun. Patients are given explicit instructions during training, both verbally and in written form. Records were reviewed for men using ICI for ≥6 months. Multivariable analysis was used to define predictors of major errors. OUTCOMES: Errors were listed as minor (zero-response injection, penile bruising, expired medication) and major (errors potentially leading to priapism: dose self-titration, double injecting). RESULTS: Overall, 1368 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean patient age was 66 ± 22 (range 29-91) years. Regarding education, 41% of patients had graduate-level education, 48% had college education, and 11% high school education. Mean follow-up was 3.2 ± 7.6 (range 0.5-12) years. The agents used were trimix (62%), bimix (35%), papaverine (2%), and prostaglandin E1 monotherapy (1%). At least 1 error occurred during self-administration in 42% of patients during their time in the program. Errors included zero response to medication due to technical error (8% of patients), penile bruising (34%), use of an expired bottle (18%), self-titration (5%), and double injecting (4% of patients); 12% of men committed ≥1 error during their time in the program. On multivariable analysis, independent predictors of the occurrence of a major error included: young age, graduate-level education, and <12 months of injection use. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported study to investigate ICI errors and risk factors. The identification of factors predictive of major errors allows for more tailored and intensive training in this subset of patients. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Strengths of this study include a large patient population (1386 men) with a considerable follow-up time. Additionally, the rigorous training, education, and monitoring of the participants, as well as the use of formal definitions, enhances the accuracy and reliability of the results. Despite the strengths of the study, recall bias may be a limitation concern. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients were error free, and the majority of the errors were minor in nature. Major errors occurred in <10% of patients. Younger age, graduate-level education, and less experience with ICI were independent predictors of major errors.

Corrigendum to "RPN (Radius, Position of tumour, iNvasion of renal sinus) Classification and Nephrometry Scoring System: An Internationally Developed Clinical Classification To Describe the Surgical Difficulty for Renal Masses for Which Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Is Planned" [Eur. Urol. Open Sci. 54 (2023) 33-42].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.05.007.].

Are systematic prostate biopsy still necessary in biopsy naive men?

PURPOSE: Multiparametric MRI and the transperineal approach have become standard in the diagnostic pathway for suspected prostate cancer. Targeting of MRI lesions is performed at most centers, but the routine use of systematic cores is controversial. We aim to assess the value of obtaining systematic cores in patients undergoing cognitive fusion targeted double-freehand transperineal prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent a cognitive fusion, freehand TPB at a single tertiary urology service (Perth, Australia) between November 2020 and November 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they were biopsy naive and had a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, based on their mpMRI results. Both targeted and systematic cores were taken at the time of their biopsy. RESULTS: One hundred forty patients suited the selection criteria. Clinically significant cancer was identified in 63% of patients. Of those that had clinically significant cancer, the target lesion identified 91% of the disease, missing 9% of patients whom the target biopsy detected non-clinically significant cancer but was identified in the systematic cores. Higher PI-RADS category patients were also found to be associated with an increasing likelihood of identifying clinically significant cancer within the target. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PI-RADS 3 and higher, the target biopsy can miss up to 9% of clinically significant cancer. Systematic cores can add value as they can also change management by identifying a high-risk disease where only intermediate cancer was identified in the target. A combination of targeted and systematic cores is still required to detect cancer.

The Use of Prophylactic Ureteric Stents in Major Abdomino-Pelvic Sarcoma Surgery: Risks, Benefits, and Potential Complications.

Here we present two cases of post-operative obstructive renal failure following major abdomino-pelvic sarcoma surgery. In both cases, prophylactic ureteric stents were inserted to aid the identification and protection of the ureters during resection of these complex retroperitoneal masses. In case one, obstructive renal failure occurred following ureteric stent removal on day 0 post-operatively. In case two, obstructive renal failure developed on day 1 post-operatively despite having a ureteric stent in situ. Here we propose that a combination of reflex anuria/ureteric edema and papillary sloughing led to the obstructive renal failure in both cases. Re-insertion of bilateral ureteric stents in case one, and replacement of a right ureteric stent in case two saw prompt excretion of urine and sloughy debris with rapid improvement of renal function. This article presents these cases in detail and further reviews the use of prophylactic ureteric stents in major abdomino-pelvic surgery along with the current guidelines for their usage.

ASTRA - An alternative approach for the posterior urethra

ABSTRACT Introduction: Access represents one of the main challenges in performing posterior urethroplasty (1, 2). Several approaches and tactics have been previously described (3). This video demonstrates the Anterior Sagittal Transrectal Approach (ASTRA), which allows better visualization of the deep perineum (4). Materials and Methods: Our patient was a 65-year-old man with post radical prostatectomy vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis. He failed repeated endoscopic interventions, eventually developing urinary retention and requiring a cystostomy. We offered a vesicourethral anastomotic repair through ASTRA. The patient was placed in the jackknife position and methylene blue instilled through the cystostomy. To optimize access to the bladder neck, an incision of the anterior border of the rectum is performed. Anastomosis is carried out with six 4-0 PDS sutures. These are tied using a parachute technique, after insertion of a 16F Foley. Results: The patient was discharged after 72 hours, and the Foley catheter was removed after 4 weeks. There were no access-related complications. Retrograde urethrogram 3 months after surgery confirmed patency of the anastomosis. Upon review 5 months after surgery the patient had urinary incontinence requiring 5 pads/day and was considered for an artificial urinary sphincter. Discussion: In our series of 92 patients who have undergone reconstructive procedure through ASTRA there have been no cases of fecal incontinence. Two patients with prior history of radiotherapy developed rectourethral fistulas. Urinary incontinence was observed in those patients with stenosis after radical prostatectomy. Conclusion: This video presents a step-by-step description of ASTRA, an approach that provides excellent visualization to the posterior urethra, representing an alternative access for repair of complex posterior urethral stenosis.

Endoscopic Holmium Laser harvesting of bladder mucosal graft for substitution urethroplasty

ABSTRACT Introduction: Tissue transfer has been used in urethral reconstruction for decades, and several grafts have been described (1, 2). The ideal graft would have optimal tissue characteristics and lead to minimal morbidity at the donor site. Urethroplasty using bladder mucosa was first described by Memmelaar in 1947 (3). The main limitation in using bladder mucosal grafts has been the invasiveness of open harvesting (4). We describe an endoscopic technique using Holmium: YAG laser to harvest bladder mucosal graft for substitution urethroplasty. Methodology: A 33-year-old male with no history of urethral instrumentation, trauma, or infection presented with obstructive lower urinary tract symptoms. On retrograde urethrogram a 6cm bulbar urethral stricture was identified. Several options were discussed, and the patient opted for a one-sided onlay dorsal urethroplasty (5) using a bladder mucosal graft. Equipment used to harvest the graft included an 18.5Fr continuous flow laser endoscope with a Kuntz working element (RZ) and a 60W Holmium Laser (Quanta) with 550μm laser fiber. The procedure was started by making a perineal incision, urethral mobilization and incision of the stricture segment. The laser endoscope was then introduced via the perineum. Settings of 0.5J, 30 Hz, and long pulse were used and a 7 x 2.5cm graft was harvested from the posterior bladder wall. Hemostasis of the harvest site was performed. The bladder mucosal graft was thinned in similar fashion to a buccal mucosal graft and sutured as per previously described techniques. Conclusion: Endoscopic Holmium Laser harvesting of bladder mucosal graft is feasible and may allow this graft to become an alternative to buccal mucosa. Further studies are required to define its role in urethral reconstruction.

Avaliação pré-operatória: triagem por meio de questionário / Preoperative evaluation: screening using a questionnaire / Evaluación preoperatoria: selección por medio de cuestionario

JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: Antes de cirurgia eletiva é indispensável conhecer com antecedência as condições clínicas do paciente. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a avaliação pré-operatória (APO) por meio do preenchimento de um questionário com a consulta realizada pelo anestesiologista. MÉTODO: Antes da consulta pré-operatória, os pacientes responderam a um questionário com informações sobre idade, peso, altura, cirurgia planejada, história médica e cirúrgica pregressa, alergias, medicamentos e doses usadas, história social (drogas ilícitas, álcool, tabagismo), capacidade funcional e tolerância ao exercício. A consulta pré-operatória foi realizada por anestesiologista que não tinha acesso aos dados do questionário nem conhecimento da pesquisa. Os dados obtidos por meio do questionário foram comparados com a consulta pré-operatória por dois pesquisadores independentes, com a finalidade de responder às perguntas: 1) A avaliação pelo questionário foi suficiente - o paciente poderia ser conduzido à cirurgia sem necessidade da avaliação presencial? 2) Houve alguma informação relevante - capaz de mudar a conduta anestésica - que o questionário não aferiu, mas que a consulta presencial avaliou? 3) Houve alguma informação acrescentada pelo questionário de saúde que a consulta presencial não obteve? Para análise estatística usou-se o teste t de Student pareado para dados paramétricos e o teste Qui-quadrado para dados categóricos com P < 0,05. RESULTADOS: Dentre os 269 pacientes elegíveis houve uma recusa, quatro aceitaram participar mas não preencheram o questionário e houve 52 perdas, totalizando 212 participantes. O questionário acrescentou dados à consulta em 109 casos (51,4%). A triagem apenas pelo questionário foi suficiente - não necessitou de consulta presencial - em 144 pacientes (67,93%). A avaliação realizada pelo anestesiologista liberou para a cirurgia na primeira consulta em 178 oportunidades (84%). Na identificação dos casos de não liberação para cirurgia, o questionário apresentou valor preditivo negativo de 94,4%, valor preditivo positivo de 38,2%, sensibilidade de 76,5% e especificidade de 76,4%. Houve fatores clínicos estatisticamente significativos (P < 0,05) associados com não liberação para a cirurgia: idade acima de 65 anos, IMC > 30, baixa capacidade funcional, hipertensão arterial, diabetes mellitus, asma, insuficiência renal, hepatite e cardiopatia isquêmica. CONCLUSÕES: O uso do questionário foi efetivo para triagem de pacientes que necessitam de avaliação complementar e/ou alteração de regime terapêutico previamente ao procedimento eletivo. Além disso, o questionário acrescentou dados não contemplados pela avaliação clínica.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Prior to elective surgery it is essential to know in advance the patient’s clinical condition. The aim of this study was to compare the preoperative evaluation (POE) through questionnaire responses with preanesthetic evaluation by the anesthesiologist. METHOD: Prior to their preoperative evaluation, patients answered a questionnaire with information regarding age, weight, height, scheduled surgery, past medical and surgical history, allergies, medications and doses used, social history (illicit drugs, alcohol, smoking), functional capacity and exercise tolerance. Preoperative evaluation was performed by an anesthesiologist who had no access to the questionnaire data or knowledge about the research. The questionnaire data were compared with the preoperative evaluation by two independent investigators, in order to answer the questions: 1) Was the questionnaire evaluation effective - could the patient undergo surgery without the need for face-to-face consultation? 2) Has been there any relevant information - ability to change the anesthetic approach - not assessed by the questionnaire, but assessed by the face-to-face consultation? 3) Has been there any information added by the health questionnaire that was missed by face-to-face consultation? For statistical analysis, the paired Student’s t-test was used for parametric data and chi-square test for categorical data, with p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Of the 269 eligible patients there was one refusal, and four agreed to participate but did not complete the questionnaire, in addition to 52 losses, totaling 212 participants. Questionnaire data added to the consultation in 109 cases (51.4%). The screening questionnaire alone was effective for 144 patients (67.93%), with no need for consultation. The anesthesiologist evaluation referred patients for surgery on their first visit in 178 opportunities (84%). In the identification of cases of non-referral to surgery, the questionnaire showed a negative predictive value of 94.4%, positive predictive value of 38.2%, sensitivity of 76.5%, and specificity of 76.4%. Statistically significant (P < 0.05) clinical factors associated with non-referral to surgery were: age over 65 years, BMI > 30, low functional capacity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, asthma, renal failure, hepatitis, and ischemic heart disease. CONCLUSION: The questionnaire was effective for screening patients who needed further evaluation and/or changes in treatment regimen prior to elective surgery. Moreover, the questionnaire added data not covered by clinical evaluation.

JUSTIFICATIVA Y OBJETIVOS: Antes de iniciar la cirugía electiva se hace indispensable conocer con anterioridad las condiciones clínicas del paciente. El objetivo de este estudio, fue comparar la evaluación preoperatoria (EPO) por medio de la realización de un cuestionario con la consulta realizada por el anestesiólogo. MÉTODO: Antes de la consulta preoperatoria, los pacientes respondieron a un cuestionario con informaciones sobre edad, peso, altura, cirugía planificada, historial médico y quirúrgico anterior, alergias, medicamentos y dosis usadas, historial social (drogas ilícitas, alcohol, tabaquismo), capacidad funcional y tolerancia al ejercicio. La consulta preoperatoria fue realizada por un anestesiólogo que no tenía acceso a los datos del cuestionario ni sabía nada sobre la investigación. Los datos obtenidos por medio del cuestionario se compararon con la consulta preoperatoria por dos investigadores independientes, con la finalidad de responder a las preguntas: 1) ¿La evaluación por el cuestionario fue suficiente y el paciente podría haber sido derivado a la cirugía sin necesidad de la evaluación presencial? 2) ¿Hubo alguna información relevante capaz de cambiar la conducta anestésica que el cuestionario no comprobó, pero que fue tenido en cuenta por la consulta presencial? 3) ¿Hubo alguna información añadida por el cuestionario de salud que la consulta presencial no obtuvo? Para el análisis estadístico se usó el test t de Student pareado para los datos paramétricos, y el test X² para los datos categóricos con P < 0,05. RESULTADOS: De los 269 pacientes elegidos, se produjo una negativa, cuatro aceptaron participar pero no rellenaron el cuestionario, y hubo 52 pérdidas, totalizando 212 participantes. El cuestionario añadió datos a la consulta en 109 casos (51,4%). La selección hecha por el cuestionario fue suficiente y no necesitó consulta presencial en 144 pacientes (67,93%). La evaluación realizada por el anestesiólogo autorizó ya para operación en la primera consulta en 178 oportunidades (84%). En la identificación de los casos de no autorización para la cirugía, el cuestionario tuvo un valor predictivo negativo de un 94,4%, valor predictivo positivo de un 38,2%, sensibilidad del 76,5% y una especificidad de un 76,4%. Hubo factores clínicos estadísticamente significativos (P < 0,05), asociados con la no autorización para la cirugía: edad por encima de los 65 años, IMC > 30, baja capacidad funcional, hipertensión arterial, diabetes mellitus, asma, insuficiencia renal, hepatitis y cardiopatía isquémica. CONCLUSIONES: El uso del cuestionario fue efectivo para la selección de pacientes que necesitan una evaluación complementaria y/o alteración de régimen terapéutico anteriormente al procedimiento electivo. Además, el cuestionario añadió datos no contemplados por la evaluación tradicional.