Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Urology ; 184: 266-271, 2024 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37972898

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of androgens in penile and urethral health, we sought to understand what impact hypogonadism may have on artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) outcomes. We hypothesize that patients with hypogonadism are at increased risk of reinterventions, complications, and infections. METHODS: We queried the TriNetX Global Database in March 2023 for patients receiving an AUS or IPP, looking at lifetime reintervention, complication, and infection rates. We conducted multiple comparisons: (1) eugonadal patients against hypogonadal patients, (2) hypogonadal patients on testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) against hypogonadal patients not on TRT, and (3) hypogonadal patients on TRT against eugonadal patients. RESULTS: Hypogonadal patients undergoing AUS had more complications (33.5% vs 28.3%), higher reintervention rates (27.7% vs 24.3%) and higher infection rates (7.3% vs 6.8%), albeit none reaching significance. Hypogonadal patients undergoing IPP had significantly higher infection rates (6.3% vs 4.4%, RR 1.5 (1.04, 2.04)) and reintervention rates (14.9% vs 11.9%, RR 1.3 (1.04, 1.61)), but not complication rates (21.9% vs 18.9%). When comparing patients with hypogonadism on TRT vs off TRT, there was not a significant difference in reinterventions, or complications, in AUS and IPP patients, but there were significantly more infections in IPP patients (7.0% vs 3.9%, RR 1.9 (1.002, 3.5)). CONCLUSION: Hypogonadal patients have more reinterventions, complications, and infections following urologic implant surgery, to varying levels of significance. TRT may not be completely protective to improve tissue health but with many limitations that should be explored in further research.


Asunto(s)
Implantación de Pene , Prótesis de Pene , Esfínter Urinario Artificial , Humanos , Masculino , Esfínter Urinario Artificial/efectos adversos , Andrógenos/uso terapéutico , Prótesis de Pene/efectos adversos , Uretra
2.
Urology ; 174: 191-195, 2023 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36754235

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To understand whether patients taking sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) would be at a similar risk of genitourinary device infection or failure as patients not taking these medications. METHODS: We queried the TriNetX database for all adult male patients undergoing artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) or inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and compared patients taking SGLT2i against those not. Cohorts and outcomes were defined using current procedural terminology and International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes. We used Age, body mass index, diabetes, smoking history and history of prostatectomy to generate propensity score matching. Our primary outcome was need for reintervention after implantation based on current procedural terminology codes. Secondary outcomes included infection rate and overall complication rate based on ICD-10 codes. Analytics were performed via TriNetX which calculated risk ratios. RESULTS: Analyses were run on November 28, 2022. After propensity score matching, there were 319 and 83 patients in each IPP and AUS cohort and comorbidity profiles were similar. Patients with an IPP on an SGLT2i were at a lower risk of overall complication (10.6% vs 16.1%, RR 0.66, P = .049). There was similar rates for AUS and risk of complication and for either implant on risk of infection or reintervention. CONCLUSION: Patients taking SGLT2is may be safely offered urologic implants. Patients taking an SGLT2 had a lower risk of complication for IPP, and there were similar rates of infection and reintervention for both IPP and AUS.


Asunto(s)
Implantación de Pene , Prótesis de Pene , Simportadores , Esfínter Urinario Artificial , Adulto , Humanos , Masculino , Glucosa , Estudios Retrospectivos , Sodio , Esfínter Urinario Artificial/efectos adversos , Inhibidores del Cotransportador de Sodio-Glucosa 2/uso terapéutico
4.
Urology ; 165: 206-211, 2022 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35143851

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To understand perspectives on renal mass biopsy, a survey was distributed to urologists in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative and Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative. Renal mass biopsy (RMB) may reduce treatment of benign renal neoplasms; however, utilization varies widely. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative and Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative are two quality improvement collaboratives that include a "real-world" collection of urologists from academic- and community-based settings. A 12-item survey assessing current RMB utilization, patient- and tumor-specific factors, adverse events, impact on management, and simulated patient scenarios was distributed. Responses are reported using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Many responders (n = 54) indicated using RMB in less than 25% of cT1a (59%) and cT1b (85%) tumors. The most important patient-specific factors on the decision to recommend RMB were possible metastasis to the kidney (94%), patient comorbidity as a risk factor for active treatment (89%), and patient age (81%). The most important tumor-specific factors were the presence of bilateral tumors (81%), tumor size (70%) and perceived potential of performing nephron-sparing surgery (67%). Ten responders (19%) noted barriers to RMB in their practice, 23 (43%) recalled experiences with complications or poor outcomes, and 43 (80%) reported experiences where the results of RMB altered management. When presented with simulated patients, few urologists (9%-20%) recommended RMB in younger patients with any sized mass. Recommendations varied based on patient age, comorbidity, and tumor size. CONCLUSION: Understanding perspectives on RMB usage is essential prior to implementing quality improvement efforts. Most urologists participating in two statewide collaboratives infrequently recommend RMB. Optimizing RMB utilization may help reduce unnecessary treatments.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Renales , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Biopsia/métodos , Humanos , Riñón/patología , Neoplasias Renales/patología , Neoplasias Renales/cirugía , Nefrectomía
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA