India Ink Tattooing of Ureteroenteric Anastomoses.

While upper tract access through the insensate conduit following urinary diversion takes less time and incurs fewer costs than percutaneous kidney access does for the treatment of ureter and kidney pathology, endoscopic ureteroenteric anastomoses (UEA) identification can be difficult. We injected India Ink into the bowel mucosa near the UEA during ileal conduit diversion (IC) to determine the safety and feasibility of ink tattooing. Patients undergoing IC were prospectively randomized to receive ink or normal saline (NS) injections. The injections were placed 1 cm from UEA in a triangular configuration, and loopogram exams and looposcopy were performed to identify reflux (UR), UEA, the tattooing site and strictures in 10 and 11 patients randomized with respect to ink and NS injections, respectively. Ink patients were older (72 vs. 61 years old, p = 0.04) and had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (5 vs. 2, p = 0.01). Looposcopy was performed in three ink and four NS patients. Visualization of UEA was achieved in 100% of the ink and 75% of the NS patients (p = 0.26). The ink ureteroenteric anastomotic stricture (UEAS) rate was higher (N = 3 vs. N = 1) and six patients vs. one patients underwent surgery, respectively, for UEAS (p = 0.31). The study was halted early due to safety concerns. Our pilot study demonstrates that ink can be well visualized following injection near UEA during IC. However, the ink cohort had more UEAS than previously cited in the literature and our prior institutional UEAS rate of 6%. While this study sample is small, the higher incidence of UEAS after ink injection led us to question the utility and safety of ink injection following IC.

Evaluation of the Educational Impact of the Urology Collaborative Online Video Didactics Lecture Series.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the Urology Collaborative Online Video Didactic (COViD) lecture series series on resident knowledge as a supplement to resident education during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: One hundred thirty-nine urology residents were voluntarily recruited from 8 institutions. A 20-question test, based on 5 COViD lectures, was administered before and after watching the lectures. Pre- and posttest scores (percent correct) and score changes (posttest minus pretest score) were assessed considering demographic data and number of lectures watched. Multiple linear regression determined predictors of improved scores. RESULTS: Of residents recruited, 95 and 71 took the pre- and posttests. Median number of lectures watched was 3. There was an overall increase in correct scores from pretest to posttest (45% vs 57%, P < .01). Watching any lectures vs none led to higher posttest scores (60% vs 44%, P < .01) and score changes (+16% vs +1%, P < .01). There was an increase in baseline pretest scores by post-graduate year (PGY) (P < .01); however there were no significant differences in posttest or score changes by PGY. When accounting for lectures watched, PGY, and time between lecture and posttest, being a PGY6 (P = .01) and watching 3-5 lectures (P < .01) had higher overall correct posttest scores. Watching 3-5 lectures led to greater score changes (P < .001-.04). Over 65% of residents stated the COViD lectures had a large or very large impact on their education. CONCLUSIONS: COViD lectures improved overall correct posttest scores and increased knowledge base for all resident levels. Furthermore, lectures largely impacted resident education during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Urinary Incontinence Research: Compliance With Research Standards for Clinical Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To perform an updated literature review to assess compliance with outcomes use and reporting guidelines. In 1997, the Urodynamics Society recommended standards of efficacy to be used for evaluation of treatment outcomes in urinary incontinence (UI). Studies published shortly after the release of these standards reported generally low rates of adherence. METHODS: We reviewed all 2017 articles related to UI in 3 urologic journals (Journal of Urology [JU], Neurourology and Urodynamics [NU], and Urology [UR]). Articles were assessed for compliance with 19 standards across 3 categories (methodology, pretreatment, and post-treatment). Analysis focused on overall and category specific compliance, as well as comparison of compliance between journals. RESULTS: A total of 78 articles met inclusion criteria for analysis. The mean overall compliance was 52% for all standards. JU demonstrated a higher compliance (63%) as compared to NU (50%) and UR (46%) (P <.01). No articles reviewed demonstrated 100% compliance with all standards. Only 23%, 6%, and 12% of JU, NU, and UR articles, respectively, demonstrated at least 75% compliance with all standards. In comparison of subcategory compliance, JU demonstrated a statistically higher methodology compliance (P <.01). In contrast, compliance with both pre- and post-treatment standards across all 3 journals demonstrated no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: Overall, we found that a significant percentage of recent study on UI fails to meet suggested standards for use and reporting of outcomes. These data suggest that continued efforts are needed to improve the quality and reporting of UI research.