Can you name that tablet? A cross-sectional study on recognition of common urology medications.

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians frequently rely on patients to accurately tell them what prescription medications and doses they are taking in outpatient visits. This information is essential to monitor the efficacy of a medication and to determine any adverse interactions. This study aimed to assess urologist and urology trainee's visual recognition of common urology medications. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to urologists and urology trainees in Ireland. Images of 11 commonly prescribed urological medications were presented with free text options for answering. Information was gathered on respondent's role and experience. Data was analysed using STATA version 17. RESULTS: The survey had a 90% response rate from 50 distributions. Respondents' roles were consultant (31.1%), specialist registrar (33.3%), registrar (22.2%), senior house officer (11.1%) and intern (2.2%). Forty six percent had more than six years urology experience. Average rate of correct responses was 39.4% ± 23.9. The most accurate group were consultants (46.1% ± 22.1), followed by specialist registrars (41.2% ± 24.9), registrars (39.1% ± 26.8), senior house officers (21.8% ± 10.4) and interns (9.1% ± 0). The most and least recognised medications were sildenafil (Viagra©) (84.4%) and fesoterodine (Toviaz©) (11.1%), respectively. Just 28.9% of respondents had previously handled any of the medications listed. CONCLUSION: Patients often do not reliably know their own medications other than to describe them or show an unpackaged tablet. Prescribing safety is paramount to ensuring patient safety and reducing the risk of adverse drug reactions. This study shows that even experienced clinicians do not recognise the medications they regularly prescribe, and decisions should not be made without accurate medication reconciliation.

Peri-operative and long-term outcomes of kidney transplantation in patients with cystic fibrosis.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of data regarding the peri-operative and long-term outcomes of kidney transplantation in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Herein, we report the peri-operative and long-term outcomes of kidney transplantation in CF patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All CF patients who received a kidney transplant at the national kidney transplant center between 1993 and 2022 were identified. Recipients of the contralateral donor kidney were selected as a control group. Primary outcomes included 1-, 5-, and 10- year death-censored graft survival and overall survival. Secondary outcomes included peri-operative morbidity, acute graft rejection, delayed graft function (DGF), and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Fourteen patients received a kidney transplant over the study period. Median age at transplantation was 35 (IQR 31, 40) years. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year death-censored graft survival was 92, 74, and 74% in the CF group compared to 100, 92, and 92% in the control group (p = .44). The 1-, 5-, and 10-year overall survival in the CF group was 85, 66, and 57% compared to 100, 92, and 82% in the control group (p = .036). There was no significant difference in peri-operative outcomes including LOS (10 vs. 11 days, p = .84), ICU admission (1 vs. 0 patients, p > .99), acute rejection episodes (2 vs. 1 patients, p > .99), and DGF (1 vs. 2 patients, p = .60). CONCLUSION: CF patients have good long-term graft survival, however, overall survival was worse compared to a matched cohort. These data provide important information for transplant surgeons when considering suitable donor allografts in this unique patient population.

Penile cancer in younger men-A more aggressive disease?

INTRODUCTION: Penile cancer (PC) in men under 45 is very rare with an incidence of 0.1 to 0.8/100,000. There is little published data on disease characteristics and outcomes of PC in younger men. Herein, we evaluate the disease characteristics and outcomes of penile cancer in younger men compared to an older cohort. METHODS: This study included all men diagnosed with PC at our institution from 2016 to 2021. Primary outcomes included overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included disease characteristics and surgical management. Men aged ≤45 years (Group A) were compared with men aged >45 years (Group B) at diagnosis. RESULTS: There were 90 patients treated for invasive PC over the study period. The median age at diagnosis was 64 (26-88). The mean length of follow-up was 27 (±18) months. There were 12 (13%) in Group A, and 78 (87%) patients in Group B. Group A had a worse cancer-specific survival compared to Group B (39 months vs. not reached, HR 0.1 (95%CI 0.02-0.85, P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in overall or disease-free survival between both groups. More men in Group A had lymph node metastases at the time of diagnosis (58% vs. 19%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in histopathological features including tumor subtype, grade, T stage, p53 status or presence of lymphovascular or perineural invasion. CONCLUSION: In our study, younger men were more likely to have nodal involvement at time of diagnosis and had a worse cancer-specific survival.

Predictors of long-term renal allograft survival after second kidney transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies investigate significant perioperative predictors for long-term renal allograft survival after second kidney transplant (SKT). We compared long-term survival following SKT with primary kidney transplant and determined predictors of renal allograft failure after SKT. METHODS: Outcomes of all primary or second kidney transplant recipients at a national kidney transplant center between 1993 and 2017 were reviewed. The primary outcomes measurements were renal allograft survival for both first and second kidney transplants. Secondary outcome measurements were incidence of delayed graft function (DGF), incidence of acute rejection (AR), and predictors for renal allograft survival in SKT recipients. RESULTS: In total, there were 392 SKTs and 2748 primary kidney transplants performed between 1993 and 2017. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year death-censored graft survival for deceased-donor recipients was 95.3%, 88.7%, and 78.2% for primary kidney transplant and 94.9%, 87.1%, and 74.9% for SKT (P = .0288). Survival of primary renal allograft <6 years (HR 0.6, P = .017), AR episodes (HR 1.6, P = .031), DGF (HR 2.0, P = .005), and HLA-DR MM (HR 1.7, P = .018) was independent predictors of long-term renal allograft failure after SKT. CONCLUSION: These findings may provide important information on long-term survival outcomes after SKT and for identifying patients at risk for long-term renal allograft failure after SKT.

Ureteric stenting with magnetic retrieval: an alternative to traditional methods.

INTRODUCTION: Ureteric stents are frequently placed following endo-urological procedures. These stents cause significant morbidity for patients. Standard ureteric stents are removed by flexible cystoscopy. This procedure can be unpleasant for patients and requires additional resources. A newly designed magnetic stent allows removal in an outpatient setting. The aim of our study is to compare the magnetic stent and standard ureteric stents with regard to morbidity, pain on stent removal and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: This study was carried out across two sites between September 2016 and July 2017. In site A, a magnetic stent (Urotech, Black-Star®) is removed by magnetic retrieval device. Fifty consecutive patients completed the validated Ureteric Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) and visual analogue scale (VAS) at the time of stent removal. On site B, a soft polyurethane stent (Cook Universa) was removed by flexible cystoscopy. Fifty patients were identified retrospectively and completed questionnaires by post. Cost analysis was also performed. RESULTS: One hundred questionnaires were included for analysis. No significant difference in stent morbidity as assessed by the USSQ was shown between both groups. Median duration of stenting was significantly shorter in the magnetic stent group (5.5 versus 21.5 days, p < 0.001). Mean pain on stent removal was significantly less with magnetic retrieval (2.9 versus 3.9, p < 0.05). Complication rates were similar in both groups. Cost analysis showed a cost saving of €203 per patient with the magnetic stent group. CONCLUSION: Magnetic stents cause similar morbidity for patients compared with standard stents removed by flexible cystoscopy; they are associated with less pain at removal and are cost saving.