The evolution of tumor enucleation partial nephrectomy: A comparison of perioperative outcomes for sutureless hemostatic bandage as an alternative to standard renorrhaphy.

BACKGROUND: The standard approach to hemostasis during partial nephrectomy (PN) is to perform suture renorrhaphy (SR). Application of a hemostatic bandage (HB) is an alternative to minimize blood loss and devitalized renal parenchyma. We aim to evaluate perioperative outcomes of PN with tumor enucleation (TE) comparing SR to HB. METHODS: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of 195 patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic PN with TE performed at a tertiary referral center (2012-2022). Hemostasis was obtained with SR in 54 patients while 141 patients underwent application of HB consisting of Surgicel®, Gelfoam® soaked in thrombin, and Floseal®. RESULTS: SR patients had tumors of greater complexity by RENAL nephrometry score compared to HB patients (p < 0.001). Operative time (141 vs. 183 min, p < 0.001), warm ischemia time (11.6 vs. 24.2 min, p < 0.001), estimated blood loss (37 vs. 214 mL, p < 0.001), and length of stay (1.2 vs. 1.8 days, p < 0.001) favored HB. There was no significant difference in Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (p = 0.22). Renal function was comparable with mean estimated glomerular filtration rate decrease of 0.66 and 0.54 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 3 months postoperatively for HB and SR, respectively (p = 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Application of an HB is a safe alternative to SR for hemostasis following PN with TE in appropriately selected patients.

Urinary catheter alleviation navigator protocol (UCANP): Update to the hospital-wide implementation at a single tertiary health care center.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-associated urinary tract infections are commonly reported health care-associated infections. It was demonstrated that the urinary catheter alleviation navigator protocol (UCANP) pilot resulted in a reduction of catheter utilization and catheter days. METHODS: Quality improvement initiative that was implemented at a single urban, tertiary health care center, focusing on early discontinuation of indwelling urinary catheters (IUCs) and avoidance of reinsertion. The protocol was expanded hospital-wide from September 2020 to April 2022. We compared IUC utilization, IUC standardized utilization ratio (SUR), and catheter-associated urinary tract infection standardized infection ratio in the preintervention period (March 2020 to August 2020) to the postintervention period (May 2022 to October 2022). RESULTS: Preimplementation, 2 patients with IUC removal were placed on UCANP. Postimplementation, 835 (45%) patients with IUC removal participated in the protocol. The number of patients requiring IUC reinsertion did not differ among the 2 groups. IUC utilization was significantly decreased from 0.28 to 0.24 with a 14% reduction (P = .025). SUR decreased by 11% from 0.778 to 0.693 (P = .007) and standardized infection ratio by 84% from 0.311 to 0.049 (P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Our protocol significantly reduced IUC utilization and SUR after hospital-wide implementation. UCANP is a safe and effective strategy that can potentially decrease unnecessary IUCs in patients with transient urinary retention.

The Impact of Receipt of Information on Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing on Screening with the Prostate-Specific Antigen Test.

There is controversy on prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in the USA, and as a result, there has been an increased push for physicians to have a thorough discussion with patients on the advantages and disadvantages of prostate cancer screening with the PSA blood test. Prior studies showed that pre-screening discussions increased the likelihood of PSA testing. This study is aimed at examining the impact of discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of the PSA test among men that fit the prostate cancer screening guidelines determined by the American Urological Association (AUA). This cross-sectional study used secondary data from the 2018 Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in the USA. The analytic sample was determined based on the American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines for prostate cancer screening (n = 54,607). Approximately, 89.5% of men underwent PSA testing. The odds of PSA testing were higher for men who received information on only the advantages of PSA testing (OR = 3.40, 95% CI = 2.80, 4.13), only the disadvantages of PSA testing (OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.02, 2.28), and both advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing (OR = 2.99, 95% CI = 2.46, 3.63) compared to men who received no information. Discussions with men, that meet the requirements for prostate cancer screening, about the advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing increased the likelihood that men would undergo PSA testing.

Careful consideration of sarcoidosis in diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer: A case report.

Osseous sarcoidosis can masquerade as metastatic prostate cancer. Awareness of this is helpful in the staging of prostate cancer in a patient with sarcoidosis.

Gardnerella vaginalis prostatitis and its treatment: A case report.

Gardnerella vaginalis is a rare cause of symptomatic urethritis and prostatitis in sexually active men. There are limited cases in the literature and few treatment recommendations. Treatment with metronidazole or clindamycin of both sexual partners may provide resolution of symptoms in these men.