Urinary Dysfunction: Frequency, Risk factors, and Interventions in patients with Cancer during Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation.

Introduction: Urinary dysfunction has a strong impact clinically, socially, and economically. Although the development of acute urinary dysfunction in hospitalized patients with cancer is common in clinical practice, its occurrence and management strategies are scant in the literature. It has been reported as one of the more common medical complications in patients with cancer undergoing acute inpatient rehabilitation. This study assessed the frequency of and risk factors for acute urinary dysfunction among these patients and identified the interventions used for management. Methods: This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients admitted to a National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center's acute inpatient rehabilitation service from 9/1/2020 through 3/15/2021. We excluded patients that were readmissions during the study time frame. We collected patients' demographic, clinical, and functional data. We defined acute urinary dysfunction as the development of any new urinary symptom(s) or diagnosis, which involved additional work-up and/or management after admission to the acute inpatient rehabilitation service. Results: Of the 176 total patients included in this study, 47 (27%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 20-34) patients had acute urinary dysfunction. The most frequent diagnoses were urinary tract infection (32%) and neurogenic bladder (26%). The most common tests were urine cultures (32%) and urinalyses (30%). The most commonly prescribed medications were antibiotics (32%) and alpha-1 blockers (15%). Other most frequent interventions included timed voiding (34%) and intermittent catheterization with bladder scans (28%). Acute urinary dysfunction was associated with an increased length of stay on the inpatient rehabilitation service (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.20; P<.001), surgery during the index admission (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.21-5.16; P=.014), and fecal incontinence (OR, 6.41; 95% CI, 1.83-22.44; P=.004). Conclusion: Acute urinary dysfunction was noted to be a substantial problem in this cohort. This is an overlooked dimension of inpatient cancer rehabilitation that deserves more attention. Patients at risk for acute urinary dysfunction may benefit from close monitoring for medical management and rehabilitation interventions to maximize functional independence with bladder care. More research regarding acute urinary dysfunction types and management approaches in post-acute care settings for patients with cancer is justified.

Injection of Urethral Bulking Agents.

Urethral injection is a safe and minimally invasive method of treating female stress urinary incontinence with multiple bulking agents currently commercially available. Although there are numerous studies that demonstrate efficacy, long-term success is not yet proven. This article aims to describe the mechanism of action and properties of various agents, patient selection factors, available techniques for injection, outcomes of urethral injections, and complications associated with the procedure.

Outcomes of simultaneous placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis and a male urethral sling through a single perineal incision.

INTRODUCTION: Synchronous implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and a bulbourethral sling single via a single perineal is a unique approach in managing erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence. AIM: This article describes our surgical approach and reviews the operative time, length of hospital stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), and cost of synchronous dual prosthetic implantation compared with the implants performed individually. Additionally, we review the short-term outcomes in patients with dual sling and penile prosthesis synchronous implants. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with IPP, 53 slings, and eight simultaneous dual implantations between January 2000 and July 2008 were retrospectively reviewed. Operative times, EBL, length of stay, cost, and complications were compared in three groups (group 1, IPP; group 2, slings; group 3, dual implants). Additionally, we reviewed pre- and postoperative Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) scores and pad use in group 3. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Review of operative times, EBL, LOS, cost, and complications. RESULTS: Dual implantation had similar operative times compared with the total time for the individual procedures (98 +/- 24 minutes for IPP; 86 +/- 24 minutes for sling; 177 +/- 17 minutes for dual implant, P > 0.05). EBL was reduced (57 +/- 30 mL for IPP; 48 +/- 59 mL for sling; 49 +/- 5 mL for group 3). LOS was also reduced (1.2 +/- 0.45 days for IPP, 0.7 +/- 0.48 days for sling; and 1.1 +/- 0.50 days for dual implant). Dual implantation was associated with approximately $9,000 in savings. With a mean follow-up of 13.6 months, group 3 reported SHIM increase from 1.3 +/- 0.5 to 23.5 +/- 0.6 and a decrease in pad use from three pads per day (range 2-6) down to a mean of one pad per day (range 0-2). One sling erosion and one sling infection occurred in group 2. One patient in group 3 had acute urinary retention resolved with 5 days of catheter drainage. CONCLUSION: Dual penile prosthesis and bulbourethral sling implantation through a single perineal incision is safe, efficient, and cost-effective.