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.

Background: Injuries sustained from dog leashes often result in visits to hand surgeons. This study presents an analysis of dog-leash-related upper-extremity injuries at a single orthopedic practice, including treatment options for these injuries, and guidance for prevention., Methods: We identified all outpatients who presented to a hand surgeon at a single institution from 2016 to 2021 following an upper-extremity injury related to a dog leash. Charts were reviewed and demographics, injury description and mechanism, and details of treatment were recorded., Results: We identified 443 patients that presented for a dog-leash-related injury. The average time from injury to outpatient visit was 23 days. Surgery occurred following injury in 96 patients (21.6%). The most common injury locations were the ring finger, followed by the wrist, third finger, and fifth finger. Interphalangeal joint sprain was the most common injury type followed by phalangeal fracture. The majority of injuries were caused by the extremity catching in the leash while being pulled (337, 75.9%). Among the 96 patients requiring surgery, open reduction and internal fixation was the most commonly performed procedure followed by closed reduction with percutaneous pinning. For patients not requiring surgery (348, 78.4%), splinting or bracing was the most common treatment recommended., Conclusion: The majority of dog-leash injuries were caused by the patient's extremity catching in the leash as it was pulled, resulting in interphalangeal joint injures and phalanx fractures. The most common treatment required for these patients was nonoperative., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Introduction The internet continues to expand in both size and number of users, and patients are using the internet with increasing frequency to research orthopedic conditions and treatment options. Despite the prevalence of patients searching for medical information, the quality of the available information varies substantially. The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability and accuracy of the information available on the internet for Dupuytren's disease. We hypothesized that the informational content found on the internet regarding this condition would be of acceptable quality. Methods The search phrasing "'Dupuytren' OR 'Dupuytren's'" was used to mimic how patients would likely search for information on the disease. These terms were entered into the five English-language search engines with the most frequent use on the internet. On each search engine, the first 50 URLs were recorded, including sponsored sites. The 250 total sites were filtered to remove duplicate sites and URLs linking to other search engines, resulting in a final list of 84 websites for informational scoring. A previously published information evaluation protocol was used to grade each website. Each site was graded according to these guidelines by two authors and scored based on authorship, content, disease summary, treatment options, pathogenesis, complications, and results. A third author resolved any conflict on authorship or content before analysis. The resultant "informational value" is the sum of the disease summary, treatment options, pathogenesis, complications, and results and can range from 0-100.  Results The mean total information score for all sites was 47.5 out of 100 points. Forty-three (51.2%) of the websites evaluated were authored by a physician or academic institution, and thirty-four (40.5%) of the sites were commercial in nature. The final seven websites (8.3%) had nonphysician, unidentified, or lay authorship. Physician and academic institution authored websites had an average informational score of 55.5 out of 100 points, compared to 39.7 out of 100 for all other websites. This difference was statistically significant (p <0.01). The mean informational score for the 10 sponsored websites was 16.4 out of 100. Conclusion We concluded that internet information on Dupuytren's disease is of poor quality and incomplete. Academic and physician authored sites have higher quality than commercial sites, but significant room for improvement still exists. Patients should be advised to identify the authorship of the websites they obtain information from and avoid advertisements and commercial sites., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2021, Plusch et al.)