[Cross-sectoral patient care in the district of Hamburg Harburg: an example of urological cooperation]. / Sektorenübergreifende Versorgung im Landkreis Hamburg-Harburg: Beispiel einer urologischen Kooperation.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring future urological care at the interface between out- and inpatient care is challenging due to demographic developments with an increasing proportion of urological diseases, the simultaneous threat of a shortage of physicians, and the increasing outpatient treatment of complex urological diseases. OBJECTIVES: The cross-sectoral cooperation model between a university maximum care provider and the urologic joint practice with a hospital affiliation (BAG) presented below can serve as an ideal model for outpatient-inpatient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Since 2016, there has been close cooperation between the BAG in Winsen/Buchholz and the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE). In addition to direct patient transfer and the continuous pre- and posttreatment of patients, two residents from the UKE rotate to the BAG every year. RESULTS: The BAG benefits from this cooperation through planning security and support in everyday patient care, while the UKE benefits from patient transfer as well as surgical and "basic urological" training of residents. By avoiding duplicate examinations and earlier discharge of patients into outpatient follow-up care, resources are spared. Meaningful patient preselection enables minor interventions to be performed close to home via the BAG, whereas complex cases are carried out at a center of excellence. CONCLUSIONS: The cooperation is seen positively by all parties without exception and, above all, as a benefit for the patient's wellbeing. The optimal training and further education of young urologists in this expanding field can thus be supported and should be integrated into urological resident training.

Colon pouch (Mainz III) for continent urinary diversion.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a continent cutaneous pouch made exclusively of colon (Mainz pouch III), as excellent results with the Mainz pouch III in irradiated patients suggested that the indication for this type of urinary diversion could be extended. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The outcome of 24 patients with continent cutaneous urinary diversions using colon segments (Mainz pouch III) was investigated retrospectively. Overall, 22 of the patients had a malignant disease and two a benign disease; 16 had a hysterectomy and pelvic exenteration for gynaecological tumours; two men with a rhabdomyosarcoma of the prostate had a radical cystoprostatectomy; one woman had pelvic exenteration for bladder cancer; one man had a simultaneous rectum resection due to infiltrating rectal cancer, and another a left nephrectomy with cystectomy for concomitant kidney and bladder tumour. Benign indications were hyper-reflexive bladder after polytrauma and two cases of neurogenic bladder dysfunction. Eighteen patients had radiotherapy (32-48 Gy) before the urinary diversion. RESULTS: The mean (range) follow-up was 35 (12-65) months. The mean pouch capacity was 293.8 mL. Three patients died during the follow-up (two from disease progression and one suicide); 20 patients were fully continent, four with reduced pouch capacity (<300 mL) had slight incontinence and are wearing a protective pad (band-aid at the umbilicus). All patients use intermittent self-catheterization (mean catheterization frequency 6.8/day, range 6-12). Complications related to the pouch were one outlet stenosis that required revision. Postoperative pouchograms showed asymptomatic reflux in four patients. None of the patients developed metabolic acidosis or diarrhoea. CONCLUSIONS: The Mainz pouch III is an alternative to other types of continent urinary diversion.