Canadian Anatomic Kidney Score: Quantitative Macroscopic Assessment of Donor Kidney Quality for Transplantation.

Background: The Canadian Anatomic Kidney Score (CAKS) is a novel 6-point grading system that standardizes the gross description of a donor kidney across 3 components-vessels, anatomy, and sticky fat. We hypothesized that the CAKS predicts allograft functional outcomes and provides additional information to the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) and histologic assessment of the donor kidney. Methods: Single-center cohort of 145 patients who underwent renal transplantation with CAKS analysis between 2018 and 2021. CAKS was prospectively determined before transplantation. Preimplantation core biopsies were assessed according to the Remuzzi score (RS). The primary outcome was 1-y allograft function represented by an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Results: Linear regression without adjustment for KDPI or RS showed a significant association between the CAKS and 1-y eGFR (-8.7 mL/min/1.73 m2 per point increase in CAKS; 95% CI, -13.0 to -4.4; P < 0.001). Most of that association was attributed to the vessel component (-12.1; -19.4 to -4.8; P = 0.002). Adjustment for KDPI and RS attenuated the relationship between 1-y function and CAKS (-4.6; -9.5 to 0.3; P = 0.065) and vessel component (-7.4; -15.2 to 0.5; P = 0.068). Conclusions: Anatomic assessment of donor kidneys at the time of transplantation associates with allograft function at 1 y. Vascular assessment appears to make the dominant contribution.

A prospective assessment of the validity of the CUA neurogenic bladder guideline.

INTRODUCTION: The Canadian Urological Association (CUA) neurogenic bladder guideline surveillance strategy for neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) has not been formally evaluated. Our objective was to evaluate the validity of the risk stratification suggested in these guidelines. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational cohort study of adult NLUTD patients with spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, or spina bifida who required urodynamics. Patients with a requirement for immediate bladder surgery (not suitable for surveillance) were excluded. Patients completed standardized medical history/questionnaires, baseline urodynamics, renal imaging, and creatinine tests. The primary outcome was the need for different types of urological management between the high-risk and moderate-risk groups. RESULTS: We enrolled 68 patients; most commonly, these were spinal cord injury patients, and most people were using intermittent catheters. At baseline, 62% (40/68) were classified as high-risk. In this group, there was a numerically greater proportion who received a recommendation for a new urological medication (48% vs. 25%, p=0.06) or a change to their bladder management (45% vs. 36%, p=0.44). A total of 26 high-risk and 23 medium-risk NLUTD patients had a one- year followup visit. A larger proportion of the high-risk patients had a recommendation for a new bladder medication (15.4% vs. 8.7% p=0.47), intravesical onabotulinum toxin (34.6% vs. 13% p=0.08), or an alternate method of bladder management (15.4% vs. 4.3%, p=0.2). Mean creatinine change was slightly greater in the high-risk group (+6.1 vs. +0.4 umol/L, p=0.05). Approximately 1/3 of both high-risk and moderate-risk patients didn't accept the recommended interventions. CONCLUSIONS: A higher proportion of high-risk NLUTD patients had urology-relevant interventions recommended, both at baseline and at their one-year followup visit. This supports the general concept of risk stratification and the variables used to define high-risk in the CUA's neurogenic bladder guideline.

Technological Advancements for Treating Erectile Dysfunction and Peyronie's Disease.

Over the past decade, there have been several advancements in the technologies available to treatment erectile dysfunction and Peyronie's disease. Vacuum erection devices, penile traction devices, low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy, and penile prosthesis surgery have evolved and are changing the way we treat men's health. Although significant improvements have been made, further work is needed to standardize treatment, create universal algorithms for technological applications, and simply their use.

Single perineal incision for artificial urinary sphincter: analysis of technique, outcomes, and experience.

BACKGROUND: To describe a large series of male patients who underwent a minimally invasive single perineal incision artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement in patients with stress urinary incontinence. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed with data collected from men undergoing AUS placement by a single high-volume surgeon over a 12-year period (2005 to 2017). Demographic and outcomes data related to AUS placement were recorded from electronic medical records, which included subjective histories and questionnaires. Institutional ethics approval was received. RESULTS: A total of 145 AUS were placed over the study period. Of these, 84 were performed through a single perineal incision for both device and reservoir placement. Almost all (n=81, 96%) reported pre-operative incontinence of more than 3 pads per day. Postoperatively, 75% were satisfied with their continence, with 21 (25%) complaining of recurrent incontinence. A total of 5 (6%) patients developed a post-operative infection, 10 (12%) had device erosion and 11 (13%) had device malfunction, but only 3 (4%) had reservoir dysfunction. A total of 24 (29%) patients required revision of their device at median of 20 months (IQR, 6-32.5 months). CONCLUSIONS: Single perineal incision is a feasible, safe, and potentially superior approach for AUS placement and warrants consideration as an accepted approach due to its more rapid surgical times, lower morbidity related to a single incision with minimal fascial defect, and favorable complication rates.

Indications for Penile Prosthesis Revision: Lessons Learned to Limit Technical Causes of Reoperation.

INTRODUCTION: Reoperations are necessary in approximately 30% of penile prostheses over 15 years following original implantation. AIM: To determine the most common indications for initial penile prosthesis reoperation at our institution and to describe technical alterations that have improved postoperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent penile prosthesis reoperation surgery at a single, high-volume Canadian center between 2006 and 2018 was performed. Patient demographic information, prosthetic device factors, and surgical complications were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcomes were the indications for and variables associated with initial penile prosthesis reoperation. RESULTS: During the study period, 99 first-time penile prosthesis reoperations were performed out of 1,161 penile prosthesis procedures (Figure 1). This included 14 (14.1%) explants, 32 (32.3%) revisions, and 53 (53.5%) explant and reimplants. Indications for reoperation included 49 (49.5%) mechanical failures, 28 (28.3%) technical causes (such as correction of malposition or device herniation), and 12 (12.1%) procedures to treat chronic postoperative pain. Median follow-up was 78.5 months, and median time to reoperation was 46 months. Mechanical failures commonly occurred in the tubing (n = 13, 26.5%) and cylinders (n = 13, 26.5%). The most frequently repositioned component was the valve pump (n = 11, 39.3%). Infection-related indications for reoperation were uncommon (n = 10, 10.1%). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: More than a quarter of penile prosthesis reoperations may have been preventable with alterations in surgical technique, device positioning, and postoperative care. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study evaluates a range of indications for initial penile prosthesis reoperation performed by a high-volume single surgeon over a 12-year period. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study, loss of patients to follow-up, and lack of etiological determinants of prosthesis failure. CONCLUSIONS: Reoperation for device repositioning and herniation was required for more than a quarter of the initial penile prosthesis implants. Modifications in surgical technique and perioperative care can help reduce the incidence of these technical causes for reoperation. Chan EP, Punjani N, Campbell JD, et al. Indications for Penile Prosthesis Revision: Lessons Learned to Limit Technical Causes of Reoperation. J Sex Med 2019; 16:1444-1450.