Search

To evaluate the number of dimensions of obstructing ureteral stones in the emergency department (ED) described in present-day radiology computed tomography reports and assess for measurement discrepancies between radiologist and urologist review. We conducted a single-center retrospective study of patients who presented to the ED with unilateral, solitary, obstructing ureteral stones from March 2018 to March 2021. Stone size in each reported dimension recorded by the radiologist was extracted from the chart and then compared to size independently measured by one of our urologists for all 3 stone dimensions. Our primary outcome was the number of stone dimensions included in the radiology report. In total, 181 patients were included for analysis. 82.3% of radiology reports described the stone in one dimension, 15% in two dimensions, and 2.7% in three dimensions. There was a significant difference in median maximal stone size between radiologist and urologist measurement (5.5 vs 6.5 mm, respectively, P <.001). One hundred fourteen stones (62%) had the maximal measurement recorded in the craniocaudal (CC) dimension by urologist review. Only 26% of radiology reports had the CC measurement included in the radiology report. Ureteral stone size in a present-day ED cohort is still frequently measured in only 1 or 2 dimensions. In many cases, this is associated with an absence of a reported CC measurement. Inadequate characterization of stone size may affect acute management. This study hopes to encourage reporting of all three dimensions of obstructing ureteral stones in the ED setting for improvements in patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To report the outcomes of performing transperineal prostate biopsy in the office setting using the novel anesthetic technique of tumescent local anesthesia. We report anxiety, pain, and embarrassment of patients who underwent this procedure compared to patients who underwent a transrectal prostate biopsy using standard local anesthesia. Consecutive patients undergoing either a transperineal prostate biopsy under tumescent local anesthesia or a transrectal prostate biopsy with standard local anesthetic technique were prospectively enrolled. The tumescent technique employed dilute lidocaine solution administered using a self-filling syringe. Patients were asked to rate their pain before, during, and after their procedure using a visual analog scale. Patient anxiety and embarrassment was assessed using the Testing Modalities Index Questionnaire. Between April 2021 and June 2022, 430 patients underwent a transperineal prostate biopsy using tumescent local anesthesia and 65 patients underwent a standard transrectal prostate biopsy. Patients who underwent a transperineal biopsy had acceptable but significantly higher pain scores than those who underwent a transrectal prostate biopsy (3.9 vs 1.6, P -value <.01). These scores fell to almost zero immediately following their procedure. Additionally, transperineal biopsy patients were more likely to experience anxiety (71% vs 45%, P <.01) and embarrassment (32% vs 15%, P <.01). Transperineal biopsy using local tumescent anesthesia is safe and well-tolerated. Despite the benefits, patients undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy under tumescent anesthesia still experienced worse procedural pain, anxiety, and embarrassment. Additional studies examining other adjunctive interventions to improve patient experience during transperineal prostate biopsy are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the novel gullwing technique for artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement. The transcorporal technique for AUS placement is beneficial in patients with 'fragile urethras' (previous failed AUS, urethroplasty or history of radiation) however limitations include insufficient lateral and ventral urethral support in addition to potential cinching during corporotomy closure which, in the absence of additional grafting may restrict our ability to conserve internal corporal capacity and limit options for future preservation of erectile function via penile prosthesis placement. The gullwing variation of the technique offers the potential to circumvent these disadvantages.Materials and Methods: This case describes the gullwing variation of transcorporal AUS placement in a complex patient with a history of abdominopelvic trauma and prior failed AUS placements secondary to urethral erosion.Results and Conclusion: Transcorporal AUS placement in patients with prior urethral compromise has been shown to result in lower revision and erosion rates. The gullwing modification of the technique is a novel variation providing improved circumferential urethral protection and, with the addition of corporal grafting, aims to enable the preservation of the three-dimensional corporal volume necessary for ease of subsequent penile prosthesis implantation. However, studies assessing the long-term functional outcomes and durability of this technique are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]