Flaps and Grafts in Robotic Reconstructive Surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The robotic approach is increasingly popular in reconstructive urology. Reconstructive surgeons have commonly used flaps and grafts for obliterating dead space including tissue interposition or as an alternative to mesh in addressing lower urinary tract dysfunction. Advantages of the robotic approach are less incisional pain, excellent visualization in the deep pelvis, and improved surgeon ergonomics. In this literature review, we describe flaps and grafts used in lower urinary tract robotic reconstructive urology, serving as an almanac for these techniques. RECENT FINDINGS: Omental, peritoneal, vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (VRAM), sigmoid epiploica, gracilis flaps, and Alloderm™ have been reported for tissue interposition during fistula repair. Fascia lata has been described as a mesh alternative for robotic sacrocolpopexy. Besides providing interposition, flaps support native tissue healing and blood supply. Grafts are easy to use with low patient morbidity, but rely on the blood supply at the recipient site. Robotic reconstruction is an emerging field, and more studies are needed to define the best uses for each flap and graft as well as strategies to maximize outcomes and minimize morbidity.

Considerations in Methods and Timing for Delivery of Genetic Counseling Information to Pediatric Oncology Patients and Families.

Many pediatric oncology patients and their families may benefit from genetic counseling and testing; however, identifying the best timing and delivery method for these referrals is sometimes a challenge. The goal of this study was to understand how and when caregivers prefer to receive information about genetic counseling and testing. A total of 56 surveys completed by caregivers at The Johns Hopkins Hospital Pediatric Oncology unit in Baltimore, Maryland were analyzed. A sizeable subset of respondents was interested in receiving information about the availability of genetic counseling from an oncology doctor or nurse, but not a genetic counselor (n=13/55, 24%). Most respondents preferred to be informed about genetic services at diagnosis (n=28/54, 52%) or within 1 to 2 months of diagnosis (n=14/54, 26%). In conclusion, patients and their families may benefit from prompt and early recognition of the risk of cancer predisposition syndromes, preferably within the first 2 months following diagnosis. Oncology professionals are an important source of information, and can introduce the availability of genetic counseling services and motivate families to undergo genetic testing, though alternative communication methods such as brochures may also be useful.