Treatment of non-obstructive, non-struvite urolithiasis is effective in treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections.

PURPOSE: To determine if treatment of non-obstructing urolithiasis is effective in management of recurrent UTI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing elective management of non-struvite upper tract urinary calculi with recurrent UTI from 2009 to 2016. Recurrent UTI was defined at ≥ 3 UTI in 12 months, with symptoms and documented urine culture. Preoperative CT was performed in all patients to determine stone burden. All patients had postoperative imaging and ≥ 12 months of follow-up. Pre- and postoperative variables were between patients who had recurrent UTI after treatment versus those who did not. RESULTS: 46 patients met inclusion criteria. 42 (91.3%) were female. Median age was 63.7 years (IQR 49.1, 73.4) and median total stone burden was 20 mm (IQR 14-35). Within the cohort, 20 (43.5%) underwent ureteroscopy only, 26 (56.5%) underwent PCNL ± URS, and none underwent ESWL. Median postoperative follow-up was 2.9 years (IQR 2.0, 4.3). Only five patients (10.9%) had recurrent UTI after treatment. 80% were with the preoperative pathogen. The presence of residual stone was an independent risk factor for recurrent UTI after treatment (p < 0.046). Diabetes, hypertension, immunosuppression and chronic kidney disease were not. CONCLUSIONS: Stone removal for patients with recurrent UTIs was associated with a high rate of success (89.1%) in elimination of further recurrent UTIs. Residual fragments are independently associated with persistent recurrent UTIs and thus, complete stone removal is of paramount importance in treatment of this patient population.

Urinary extracellular vesicle-associated MCP-1 and NGAL derived from specific nephron segments differ between calcium oxalate stone formers and controls.

Randall's plaque (RP; subepithelial calcification) appears to be an important precursor of kidney stone disease. However, RP cannot be noninvasively detected. The present study investigated candidate biomarkers associated with extracellular vesicles (EVs) in the urine of calcium stone formers (CSFs) with low (<5% papillary surface area) and high (≥5% papillary surface area) percentages of RP and a group of nonstone formers. RPs were quantitated via videotaping and image processing in consecutive CSFs undergoing percutaneous surgery for stone removal. Urinary EVs derived from cells of different nephron segments of CSFs (n = 64) and nonstone formers (n = 40) were quantified in biobanked cell-free urine by standardized and validated digital flow cytometer using fluorophore-conjugated antibodies. Overall, the number of EVs carrying surface monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1 and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) were significantly lower in CSFs compared with nonstone former controls (P < 0.05) but did not differ statistically between CSFs with low and high RPs. The number of EVs associated with osteopontin did not differ between any groups. Thus, EVs carrying MCP-1 and NGAL may directly or indirectly contribute to stone pathogenesis as evidenced by the lower of these populations of EVs in stone formers compared with nonstone formers. Validation of EV-associated MCP-1 and NGAL as noninvasive biomarkers of kidney stone pathogenesis in larger populations is warranted.

Artificial urinary sphincter revision for urethral atrophy: Comparing single cuff downsizing and tandem cuff placement.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes for single urethral cuff downsizing versus tandem cuff placement during artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) revision for urethral atrophy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 1778 AUS surgeries performed at our institution from 1990-2014. Of these, 406 were first AUS revisions, including 69 revisions for urethral atrophy. Multiple clinical and surgical variables were evaluated for potential association with device outcomes following revision, including surgical revision strategy (downsizing a single urethral cuff versus placing tandem urethral cuffs). RESULTS: Of the 69 revision surgeries for urethral atrophy at our institution, 56 (82%) were tandem cuff placements, 12 (18%) were single cuff downsizings and one was relocation of a single cuff. When comparing tandem cuff placements and single cuff downsizings, the cohorts were similar with regard to age (p=0.98), body-mass index (p=0.95), prior pelvic radiation exposure (p=0.73) and length of follow-up (p=0.12). Notably, there was no difference in 3-year overall device survival compared between single cuff and tandem cuff revisions (60% versus 76%, p=0.94). Likewise, no significant difference was identified for tandem cuff placement (ref. single cuff) when evaluating the risk of any tertiary surgery (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-4.12, p=0.94) or urethral erosion/device infection following revision (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.20-5.22, p=0.77). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in overall device survival in patients undergoing single cuff downsizing or tandem cuff placement during AUS revision for urethral atrophy.

Artificial Urinary Sphincter Mechanical Failures-Is it Better to Replace the Entire Device or Just the Malfunctioning Component?

PURPOSE: We evaluate the characteristics of artificial urinary sphincter mechanical failures and compare outcomes based on the surgical revision strategy, replacing only the failed component or the entire device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1,802 male patients with stress urinary incontinence underwent artificial urinary sphincter procedures from 1983 to 2011 at our institution, of which 1,082 were primary placements. Of these patients 125 experienced mechanical device malfunction. Multiple clinical and surgical variables were evaluated for a potential association with device malfunction. In addition, we evaluated for predictors of failure of the revised device, including time from primary artificial urinary sphincter to revision surgery and surgical revision strategy (single component vs entire device), with failure defined as any tertiary surgery. RESULTS: At a median followup of 4.2 years (IQR 0.8, 7.9) 125 patients experienced device malfunction. The urethral cuff was the most common component failure (46.1%), followed by abdominal reservoir (22.6%), tubing (21.7%) and pump (9.6%). There was no association of time from primary surgery to revision for mechanical failure (HR 0.89, p=0.33) or revision strategy (HR 0.47, p=0.15) with the risk of tertiary surgery. Additionally, as there was no significant interaction between these variables (HR 1.11, p=0.39), no cutoff could be identified at which one revision technique produced significantly improved device survival compared to another. However, there was a trend toward improved 3-year device survival after replacement of the entire device vs a single component (76% vs 60%, p=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: No cutoff in time to mechanical failure could be identified to guide decision making in the management of mechanical artificial urinary sphincter failure. Likewise, it is unclear if replacing the entire device, rather than the single malfunctioning component, alters device survival. As such, further studies are needed. However, given the current trend toward improved overall device survival, the limited additional risk and the lack of adequate clinical predictors for tertiary surgery, we would advocate for replacement of the entire device when possible.

The Impact of Prior Radiation Therapy on Artificial Urinary Sphincter Device Survival.

PURPOSE: The literature on artificial urinary sphincter device survival in individuals with a history of radiation therapy is conflicting. We assess device survival outcomes among individuals after prior radiation therapy exposure undergoing primary artificial urinary sphincter placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional review board approved database of all patients who underwent artificial urinary sphincter surgery from 1999 to 2011 was used to assess device survival in patients treated with radiotherapy compared to individuals without radiotherapy exposure. Hazard regression and competing risk analysis were used to determine the association between radiation therapy and device outcomes. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2011 a total of 872 patients underwent artificial urinary sphincter surgery at our institution. Of these patients 489 underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter placement, with 181 of 489 (37%) having received radiation therapy. Patients with prior radiation therapy were older (median age 72.0 vs 70.1 years, p <0.01) and had a higher median body mass index (29.4 vs 28.6 kg/m(2), p <0.03) than those without radiation exposure. Rates of diabetes mellitus and hypertension were similar between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in overall device survival between individuals who received radiation therapy and those without radiation therapy exposure, with 1 and 5-year device survival rates of 92% vs 90% and 77% vs 74%, respectively (p=0.24). CONCLUSIONS: While individuals who underwent radiation therapy were significantly older and had a higher body mass index, device survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups when using a cuff size greater than 3.5 cm. These findings will assist the urologist with the preoperative counseling of men undergoing primary artificial urinary sphincter placement with a history of radiation therapy.

Long-Term Quality of Life and Functional Outcomes among Primary and Secondary Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantations in Men with Stress Urinary Incontinence.

PURPOSE: There remains a paucity of data regarding subjective and functional outcomes after artificial urinary sphincter implantation. Therefore, we evaluated long-term differences in quality of life after primary and secondary artificial urinary sphincter surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men were invited to participate in a mail-in survey assessing artificial urinary sphincter status, patient satisfaction and urinary control. Patients with primary (467) and secondary (122) artificial urinary sphincter devices without an event were included in the study. Differences between the cohorts including quality of life (10-point scale, maximum 100) and functional outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall 229 (49%) patients with primary and 49 (40%) with secondary artificial urinary sphincters completed the survey at a median of 8.3 years. Patients with primary and secondary artificial urinary sphincter devices reported similar artificial urinary sphincter quality of life (score 74 vs 74). There were no significant differences in urinary continence outcomes including use of 1 pad or less daily (56% vs 55%), frequency of leakage 1 time or more per day (81% vs 71%) or degree of minimal leakage related bother (64% vs 55%). At less than 5 vs 10 or more years there was a significant reduction in artificial urinary sphincter quality of life (86 vs 73, p=0.007). Urinary continence also declined with time, including perceived urinary control (85% vs 53%, p=0.004), minimal leakage related bother (76% vs 59%, p=0.05) and use of 1 pad or less daily (67% vs 55%, p=0.07). On univariate analysis no clinical variables, including secondary revision, were associated with satisfaction or continence outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We noted a high level of artificial urinary sphincter quality of life, acceptable urinary control and no difference in functional outcomes between men undergoing primary or secondary artificial urinary sphincter surgery. However, the time related decline in satisfaction and continence highlights the need for patient counseling regarding long-term artificial urinary sphincter functional outcomes.

Outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter placement in octogenarians.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of patient age on device outcomes among patients undergoing primary artificial urinary sphincter. METHODS: A total of 1081 male patients who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter placement from 1983 to 2011 were analyzed, including 91 men (8%) who were aged >80 years at the time of surgery. Revisions and explanations were compared between men stratified by decade of life. Hazard ratios adjusting for competing risks were used to determine the association with age and artificial urinary sphincter device outcomes (infection/erosion, urethral atrophy and malfunction), while overall device failure was estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Patients aged >80 years were more likely to have coronary disease (P = 0.009), diabetes mellitus (P = 0.04), hypertension (P = 0.002) and lower body mass index (P < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, patients aged >80 years were significantly more likely to experience device erosion or infection compared with a reference of patients aged <60 years (hazard ratio 4.13; P = 0.046), whereas there was no difference in those patients aged 60-70 years or 70-80 years compared with the reference group (P = 0.56 and 0.45). There was no significant difference in overall device survival between the age-stratified groups (P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Although overall artificial urinary sphincter device survival is similar, patients aged >80 years are more likely to experience erosion or infection compared with younger patients. Despite this, the overall device failure rate is low, and artificial urinary sphincter might be considered for appropriately selected and counseled octogenarians.

Perioperative Complications following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement.

PURPOSE: We evaluated perioperative complications in patients undergoing primary artificial urinary sphincter placement and the potential impact of these complications on device outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During the 2-year period from 2012 to 2014 we retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of 197 consecutive artificial urinary sphincter implantation procedures performed at our institution for post-prostatectomy incontinence. Of these cases 100 that were primary implantations comprise the study cohort. Perioperative complications, defined as those occurring within 6 weeks postoperatively, were classified by the Clavien-Dindo classification. After office evaluation at 6 weeks patients were followed for symptoms. Patient followup was obtained through office examination and telephone correspondence. RESULTS: Patients undergoing primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation had a median age of 71.5 years (IQR 66, 76). The overall rate of any complication (Clavien I-V) within 6 weeks of surgery was 35%, including urinary retention in 31% of cases, cellulitis in 1%, device infection in 2% and urethral erosion in 2%. No significant differences in pertinent clinical comorbidities such as age (p = 0.69), hypertension (p = 0.95), coronary artery disease (p = 0.57), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.17), body mass index (p = 0.47), prior pelvic radiation therapy (p = 0.45), prior urethral sling placement (p = 0.91) or transcorporeal urethral cuff placement (p = 0.22) were found between patients with and without complications. Median followup was similar between those with and without postoperative urinary retention (p = 0.14). Postoperative urinary retention was associated with adverse 6-month device survival (76% vs 89%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The most common complication of artificial urinary sphincter placement is urinary retention. Serious adverse events following artificial urinary sphincter placement are rare. Postoperative urinary retention is associated with adverse short-term device survival rates.

HoLEP Learning Curve-Resident Perspective: Survey of Senior Residents from High-Volume Tertiary Center.

Objective: We aim to report the learning curve and experience performing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) from a resident standpoint trained at a tertiary high-volume center. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to 10 surveyees that included recently graduated chief residents trained at Indiana University in the past 3 years i.e., between 2020 and 2022 with a 100% response rate. The questionnaire focused on HoLEP training experience based on a recently established mentorship curriculum in training the residents through each individual step of the surgery. Results: The average learning curve for performing HoLEP was reported to be greater than 25 cases with 50% of the residents reporting >50 cases to master the technique. The surgical difficulty of steps of the HoLEP were rated on a subjective scale of 1-5: 1 = very easy, 2 = easy, 3 = neutral, 4 = hard, and 5 = very hard. The common challenging steps in decreasing the order of difficulty as reported are performing apical enucleation, joining anterior and posterior planes, and dividing anterior commissure with a mean rating of 3.5, 3.1, and 3.1, respectively. The most difficult aspect of the surgery to master was performing apical dissection (60%). Comparing operative parameters for HoLEP with transurethral resection of the prostate in aspects of resection volume and times, 70% of candidates reported it better for HoLEP whereas 20% had similar times for both procedures. A total of 90% of the residents felt confident to offer HoLEP as part of their practice without the need for any further training. Regarding the initial challenge of including HoLEP surgery in practice, the majority (60%) reported difficulty with equipment set up in their practice while 20% reported difficulty maintaining efficient operating room (OR) times and turnover. Conclusion: We believe HoLEP can be performed immediately after residency training and incorporated into practice with high volume, repeated exposure to HoLEP surgery throughout residency based on study results. The average learning curve reported for performing HoLEP was greater than 25 cases.