Long-term outcomes (beyond 5 years) of liver transplant recipients-A transatlantic multicenter study.

The long-term (>5 y) outcomes following liver transplantation (LT) have not been extensively reported. The aim was to evaluate outcomes of LT recipients who have survived the first 5 years. A multicenter retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 3 high volume LT centers (Dallas-USA, Birmingham-UK, and Barcelona-Spain) was undertaken. All adult patients, who underwent LT since the inception of the program to December 31, 2010, and survived at least 5 years since their LT were included. Patient survival was the primary outcome. A total of 3682 patients who survived at least 5 years following LT (long-term survivors) were included. Overall, median age at LT was 52 years (IQR 44-58); 53.1% were males; and 84.6% were Caucasians. A total of 49.4% (n=1820) died during a follow-up period of 36,828 person-years (mean follow-up 10 y). A total of 80.2% (n=1460) of all deaths were premature deaths. Age-standardized all-cause mortality as compared to general population was 3 times higher for males and 5 times higher for females. On adjusted analysis, besides older recipients and older donors, predictors of long-term mortality were malignancy, cardiovascular disease, and dialysis. Implementation of strategies such as noninvasive cancer screening, minimizing immunosuppression, and intensive primary/secondary cardiovascular prevention could further improve survival.

Transregional Study Highlighting the Increasing Burden of Urology Cancer Multidisciplinary Team Meetings Around the UK.

Introduction The urology multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) is the key weekly meeting that allows the opportunity to review results and discuss management plans for all urological cancers within a department. As populations age and cancer detection and management improve, the demand for the MDT will increase. We conducted a collaborative transregional study within the UK to evaluate the current workload on the urology MDT. Methods The study was divided into two parts: a multicenter retrospective audit and a snapshot survey. Three UK hospitals in Birmingham, Liverpool, and Cardiff were recruited into the multicenter study. Each hospital provided full MDT lists for all weekly meetings between August 2017 and 2022. Retrospective data gathered included the number of patients discussed per week, the average age of patients per week, the time allocated to their weekly MDT, and the total number of consultants in the department. The second part of the study involved the distribution of an online questionnaire to urologists across the UK to obtain a snapshot picture with the above parameters. Results Snapshot data from 34 different UK hospitals showed MDT length ranged from 1-6 hours, patients discussed ranged from 10-90 per week, and the maximum average discussion time was 3.8 minutes per case. Furthermore, 76% (N = 28/37) of respondents said unnecessary cases were discussed. Varied suggestions were provided on how the MDT could be improved. Multicenter five-year data showed a rise in mean total numbers of patients discussed per week in all centers: a 34.8% increase in Birmingham (from 34.5 patients to 46.5 patients), a 23.5% increase in Liverpool (27.2 patients to 33.6 patients), and a 38.8% increase in Cardiff (22.7 patients to 31.5 patients). Hours per meeting were Birmingham (2), Liverpool (3), and Cardiff (4), which meant the average minutes per patient discussion were Birmingham (2.6), Liverpool (5.4), and Cardiff (7.6). Conclusion There is a rapidly rising trend across UK regions for the number of patients being discussed in the urology MDT meeting. The MDT structure and function across the country are highly variable. There is consensus that the MDT discusses cases that are unnecessary, and this has been recognized for many years. Widespread implementation of the latest MDT management guidelines is urgently required to ensure MDT meetings are able to function effectively and efficiently into the future.

Flexible Ureteroscopy: Global User Experience Using Disposable Devices.

INTRODUCTION: Renal stone treatment through flexible ureteroscopy is widely established and successful. Ureteroscopes can broadly be classified into reusable and single-use disposable devices, each with their own advantages. Disposable scopes are cheaper to buy, maintain, and dispose of but may have a greater environmental impact and long-term cost. To establish the collective views of urologists, we conducted a multicentre, global study to demonstrate users' experience with single-use flexible ureteroscopes.  Methods: An online nine-question survey was distributed to urologists globally through email and social media platforms. Questions focused on user grade, experience, location, general opinion, advantages, disadvantages, and estimated cost of a single-use flexible ureteroscope. All responses were collated over a three-day period and analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 69 responses were received; the majority of responses were from the UK (75%), and most were consultants (64%). Two-thirds of those surveyed had used a single-use scope on a patient, and 95% of them stated they enjoyed using it, citing excellent vision and reduced need for maintenance. The majority (52%) stated that widespread adoption of disposable scopes was limited due to their prohibitive expense, with an average, sterling-converted responder-estimated cost of £991 (£100-£6000) per reusable scope. CONCLUSION: Most urologists enjoyed using disposable scopes, finding them comparable or better than reusable devices. However, the initial cost can be prohibitive in certain centres. The potential environmental impact is a further concern as this remains largely unknown for now. In the meantime, it is likely that stone units will continue to use a combination of single-use and reusable scopes, considering their individual needs and budgets as well as local availability and price.