Robotic ureteral reconstruction for recurrent strictures after prior failed management.

Objectives: To describe our multi-institutional experience with robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) in patients who failed prior endoscopic and/or surgical management. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our Collaborative of Reconstructive Robotic Ureteral Surgery (CORRUS) database for all consecutive patients who underwent RUR between 05/2012 and 01/2020 for a recurrent ureteral stricture after having undergone prior failed endoscopic and/or surgical repair. Post-operatively, patients were assessed for surgical success, defined as the absence of flank pain and obstruction on imaging. Results: Overall, 105 patients met inclusion criteria. Median stricture length was 2 (IQR 1-3) centimetres. Strictures were located at the ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) (41.0%), proximal (14.3%), middle (9.5%) or distal (35.2%) ureter. There were nine (8.6%) radiation-induced strictures. Prior failed management included endoscopic intervention (49.5%), surgical repair (25.7%) or both (24.8%). For repair of UPJ and proximal strictures, ureteroureterostomy (3.4%), ureterocalicostomy (5.2%), pyeloplasty (53.5%) or buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (37.9%) was utilized; for repair of middle strictures, ureteroureterostomy (20.0%) or buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (80.0%) was utilized; for repair of distal strictures, ureteroureterostomy (8.1%), side-to-side reimplant (18.9%), end-to-end reimplant (70.3%) or appendiceal bypass (2.7%) was utilized. Major (Clavien >2) post-operative complications occurred in two (1.9%) patients. At a median follow-up of 15.1 (IQR 5.0-30.4) months, 94 (89.5%) cases were surgically successful. Conclusions: RUR may be performed with good intermediate-term outcomes for patients with recurrent strictures after prior failed endoscopic and/or surgical management.

Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Is Protective Against Postoperative Cardiothoracic Wound Infection.

BACKGROUND: Sternal wound infections are a rare but life-threatening complication of cardiothoracic surgery. Prior literature has supported the use of negative pressure wound therapy to decrease sternal wound infections and promote healing. This study sought to determine whether closed incision negative pressure therapy reduced wound infection and improved outcomes in cardiothoracic surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed including all adult patients who underwent nontraumatic cardiothoracic surgery at a single institution between 2016 and 2018 (n = 1199). Patient characteristics, clinical variables, and surgical outcomes were compared between those who did and did not receive incisional negative pressure wound therapy intraoperatively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis determined factors predictive or protective of the development of complications. RESULTS: Incisional negative pressure wound therapy was used in 58.9% of patients. Patients who received this therapy were older with statistically higher rates of hyperlipidemia, statin, and antihypertensive use. The use of negative pressure wound therapy was found to significantly reduce rates of both wound infection (3.0% vs 6.3%, P = 0.01) and readmission for wound infection (0.7% vs 2.6%, P = 0.01). After controlling for confounding variables, negative pressure wound therapy was found to be a protective factor of surgical wound infection (odds ratio, 0.497; 95% confidence interval, 0.262-0.945). CONCLUSIONS: In the largest population studied to date, this study supported the expanded use of negative pressure therapy on sternal wound incisions to decrease infection rates.

Management of symptomatic adult penile urethral arteriovenous malformation.

We present the Case of a 23-year-old male with a history of recurrent spontaneous urethral bleeding due to an arteriovenous malformation (AVM) of his corpus spongiosum which abutted his penile urethra. AVMs are often congenital but can also be related to prior trauma. The literature on male genital AVMs is primarily limited to pediatric AVMs of the scrotum or glans penis with one report of adult urethral AVM in the setting of known trauma. We describe a novel presentation of atraumatic adult male genital AVM treated by surgical repair with resolution of bleeding.

CT planning studies for robotic total knee arthroplasty.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to analyze the true costs associated with preoperative CT scans performed for robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) planning and to determine the value of a formal radiologist's report of these studies. METHODS: We reviewed 194 CT reports of 176 sequential patients who underwent primary RATKA by a single surgeon at a suburban teaching hospital. CT radiology reports were reviewed for the presence of incidental findings that might change the management of the patient. Payments for the scans, including the technical and professional components, for 330 patients at two hospitals were also recorded and compared. RESULTS: There were 82 incidental findings in 61 CT studies, one of which led to a recommendation for additional testing. Across both institutions, the mean total payment for a preoperative scan was $446 ($8 to $3,870). The mean patient payment was $71 ($0 to $2,690). There was wide variation in payments between the institutions. In Institution A, the mean total payment was $258 ($168 to $264), with a mean patient payment of $57 ($0 to $100). The mean technical payment in this institution was $211 ($8 to $856), while the mean professional payment was $48 ($0 to $66). In Institution B, the mean total payment was $636 ($37 to $3,870), with a mean patient payment of $85 ($0 to $2,690). CONCLUSION: The total cost of a CT scan is low and a minimal part of the overall cost of the RATKA. No incidental findings identified on imaging led to a change in management, suggesting that the professional component could be eliminated to reduce costs. Further studies need to take into account the patient perspective and the wide variation in total costs and patient payments across institutions and insurances. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):79-84.