Initial Experience and Clinical Assessment of the Karl Storz FLEX-XC1 Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope.

INTRODUCTION: The Karl Storz FLEX-XC1 is a novel single-use flexible ureteroscope that uses the same videographics platform as its reusable digital counterpart. We evaluated the technical performance of the FLEX-XC1 in its initial clinical use. METHODS: We reviewed a series of consecutive ureteroscopy procedures performed by 2 endourologists using the FLEX-XC1 for indications for which we typically use a single-use device: total stone burden > 15 mm or > 10 mm in the lower pole, anticipated case duration > 60 minutes, bilateral procedure, or upper tract urothelial cancer procedures. We assessed device tip deflection, intraoperative mechanical failure, and clinical outcomes for each case. Surgeons rated visual clarity, image quality, and maneuverability on a 1 to 5 Likert scale. RESULTS: Of 29 procedures using FLEX-XC1, 27 (93%) were successfully completed. Preoperative upward deflection was < 270° in 6 (21%) cases, and downward deflection was < 270° in 9 (31%) cases. Three types of intraoperative malfunctions occurred: rotational twisting of deflectable tip (4 cases, 13%), device not advancing through distal ureter (1 case, 3%), and working channel not accommodating a 365-µm laser (1 case, 3%). Visual clarity, image quality, and maneuverability were rated as 5 "very good" or 4 "good" in 100%, 100%, and 97% of cases, respectively. No device-specific or general 30-day complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The FLEX-XC1 showed comparable image quality and maneuverability to reusable digital devices. We observed incomplete deflection in up to 31% of cases and mechanical failure in 2 cases. The FLEX-XC1 may be advantageous in prolonged cases where maintaining visual clarity is paramount.

Examination of nutritional factors associated with urolithiasis risk in plant based meat alternatives marketed to children and infants.

INTRODUCTION: The global prevalence of pediatric nephrolithiasis continues to rise amidst increased sodium and animal protein intake. Plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) have recently gained popularity due to health benefits, environmental sustainability, and increased retail availability. PBMAs have the potential to reduce the adverse metabolic impact of animal protein on kidney stone formation. We analyzed PBMAs targeted to children to characterize potential lithogenic risk vs animal protein. METHODS: We performed a dietary assessment using a sample of PBMAs marketed to or commonly consumed by children and commercially available at national retailers. Nutrient profiles for PBMAs were compiled from US Department of Agriculture databases and compared to animal protein sources using standardized serving sizes. We also analyzed nutrient profiles for plant-based infant formulas against typical dairy protein-based formulas. Primary protein sources were identified using verified ingredient lists. Oxalate content was extrapolated from dietary data sources. RESULTS: A total of 41 PBMAs were analyzed: chicken (N = 18), hot dogs (N = 3), meatballs (N = 5), fish (N = 10), and infant formula (N = 5). Most products (76%) contained a high-oxalate ingredient as the primary protein source (soy, wheat, or almond). Average oxalate content per serving was substantially higher in these products (soy 11.6 mg, wheat 3.8 mg, almond 10.2 mg) vs animal protein (negligible oxalate). PBMAs containing pea protein (24%) had lower average oxalate (0.11 mg). Most PBMAs averaged up to six times more calcium and three times more sodium per serving compared to their respective animal proteins. Protein content was similar for most categories. CONCLUSIONS: Three-quarters of the examined plant-based meat products for children and infants contain high-oxalate protein sources. Coupled with higher per-serving sodium and calcium amounts, our findings raise questions about possible lithogenic risk in some PBMAs, and further studies are needed to assess the relationship between PBMAs and nephrolithiasis.

Complications and troubleshooting in primary penile prosthetic surgery-a review.

Penile implant surgery is the gold standard to treat erectile dysfunction with success rates of over 90%. The first penile implants were developed in the early 1900s. Since then, several types of implants have been developed including malleable implants, two-piece inflatable implants, and three-piece inflatable implants. The three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis, which was introduced in 1973, is the most widely used type of penile implant in the United States. Penile implant surgery has undergone numerous advancements over the years, improving outcomes and patient satisfaction. However, as with any surgical procedure, there are risks and complications associated with penile implant surgery. It is important for surgeons to understand these potential complications and to have strategies in place to manage and prevent them to achieve the best possible outcomes for their patients.

Vasectomy Reversal Online Marketing Practices: What Are We Putting Out There?

OBJECTIVE: To determine characteristics of providers marketing vasectomy reversal (VR) online, degree of information available online, the ease with which patients can compare providers, and the differences in VR practice patterns between academic and private practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified VR practices operating within the top 50 most populous metropolitan areas in the US. Practice websites were reviewed to obtain information such as provider educational background, level of magnification, ability to perform vasoepididymostomy, surgical volume, and cost. Based on information available, providers were assigned a novel REVERSAL score created by the authors. Descriptive statistics were used to compare results. RESULTS: Of the 107 providers identified (29 academic, 78 private), the majority were male urologists with a Doctor of Medicine degree. Academic providers were more likely to have fellowship training than private practice providers, 96.6 vs 43.6%, respectively (P = 0.00001). Compared to non-urologists, urologists were less likely to purchase online ads or disclose cost. Non-urologists charged significantly less than urologists, $3,584 ± 1,554 and $6,591 ± 1,518, respectively (P = 0.00001). Only one provider provided complete information as defined by REVERSAL score of 12, with the majority (61.7%) of providers achieving score ≤6. CONCLUSION: There is significant lack of transparency in publicly available information from VR practices. Practices should implement measures to improve dissemination of information to the public, so that patients can more easily compare providers and make informed decisions regarding VR.