Search

Introduction: Placing ureteral stents at the ureteroileal anastomosis for radical cystectomy with ileal conduit (RCIC) has long been common practice. Recently, some providers have begun omitting stents. We sought to investigate differences in perioperative and 30-day outcomes between patients who underwent RCIC with and without stents placed at the ureteroileal anastomosis., Methods: We identified RCICs performed between 2019 and 2021 in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database and corresponding Cystectomy-Targeted Participant Use File. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and operative parameters were compared via Pearson's χ 2 and t tests between stented and stentless RCICs. Outcomes of interest, including rates of UTIs, acute kidney injury, renal failure requiring dialysis, ileoileal anastomotic leaks, ureteral obstruction, urinary leak or fistula formation, reoperations, and 30-day hospital readmissions, were compared using Pearson's χ 2 . All statistical tests were 2-tailed with P < .05 considered significant., Results: A total of 5418 RCICs were identified. Four hundred ninety-eight (9.2%) were stentless. There were no differences in baseline demographics or comorbidities. Significantly fewer stented patients had robotic-assisted operations (23% vs 29%, P < .01). Stented patients had lower rates of urinary leak or fistula formation (3.1% vs 4.8%, P = .04). There was no significant difference in 30-day rates of UTIs, acute kidney injuries, renal failure, ileoileal anastomotic leaks, ureteral obstruction, reoperations, and readmissions. Limitations include retrospective design and lack of longitudinal tracking past 30 days., Conclusions: Stentless patients had noninferior outcomes compared to stented patients in most important 30-day outcomes. Our analysis suggests that stents may not be necessary in ileal conduit urinary diversion procedures.

Introduction: ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence platform available to patients seeking medical advice. Traditionally, urology patients consulted official provider-created materials, particularly the Urology Care Foundation™ (UCF). Today, men increasingly go online due to the rising costs of health care and the stigma surrounding sexual health. Online health information is largely inaccessible to laypersons as it exceeds the recommended American sixth to eighth grade reading level. We conducted a comparative assessment of patient education materials generated by ChatGPT vs UCF regarding men's health conditions., Methods: All 6 UCF men's health resources were identified. ChatGPT responses were generated using patient questions obtained from UCF. Adjusted ChatGPT responses were generated by prompting, "Explain it to me like I am in sixth grade." Textual analysis was performed using sentence, word, syllable, and complex word count. Six validated formulae were used for readability analysis. Two physicians independently scored responses for accuracy, comprehensiveness, and understandability. Statistical analysis involved Wilcoxon matched-pairs test., Results: ChatGPT responses were longer and more complex. Both UCF and ChatGPT failed official readability standards, although ChatGPT performed significantly worse across all 6 topics (all P < .001). Conversely, adjusted ChatGPT readability typically surpassed UCF, even meeting the recommended level for 2 topics. Qualitatively, UCF and ChatGPT had comparable accuracy, although ChatGPT had better comprehensiveness and worse understandability., Conclusions: When comparing readability, ChatGPT-generated education is less accessible than provider-written content, although neither meets the recommended level. Our analysis indicates that specific artificial intelligence prompts can simplify educational materials to meet national standards and accommodate individual literacy.