Search

Byline: Nikita. Shrivastava, Divya. Aggarwal, Rahul. Jena A 67-year-old male was incidentally found to have a large left perinephric mass with a poorly functioning left kidney. A differential diagnosis of [...]

Introduction: We present our initial experience with robot-assisted reconstructive surgeries with the Da Vinci Xi robotic system for benign ureteric pathologies. Materials and methods: This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent robot-assisted reconstructive procedures for benign diseases of the ureter at our department from April 2018 to November 2022. Demographic and perioperative details were recorded. Patients were followed up and surgical success was evaluated on the basis of symptomatic, functional, and radiological improvement. Results: A total of 34 patients underwent robot-assisted reconstructions for benign ureteric pathologies by various techniques. Mean age, body mass index (BMI), hospital stay and follow-up duration were 36 years, 24.1 kg/m2, 5.29 days, and 7.08 months respectively. Procedures included pyeloplasty in eight, primary ureteroneocystostomy (UNC) in seven, Psoas hitch UNC in five, Boari flap UNC in six, Ureteroureterostomy in four, ureterocalicostomy in two and ileal ureteral transposition in two patients. Mean docking time, total operative time, and estimated blood loss were 31.5 min, 178 min, and 64.3 ml, respectively. All patients had radiologic or functional improvement on follow-up after 6 months. Conclusion: Robot-assisted reconstructive surgery for benign ureteric and bladder pathologies imparted excellent short-term outcomes without major complications with all the advantages of a minimally invasive approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The majority of the open access publishing allows the researchers to publish their articles for a fee and at the same time enables the readers to access the research without paying the expensive journal subscription charges. Under the garb of open access publishing, predatory journals run a scam to dupe the researchers of money. This study was conducted to highlight the characteristics of pseudojournals and increase the awareness about their modus operandi. Methods: The email inboxes of 3 academic urologists (APS, AS, and KP) were searched for emails soliciting articles for open access journals. A list of all such journals was compiled. These journals were checked for metrics from the Journal Citation Reports and the Scimago Journal Rankings. All these journals were then cross-checked with the available whitelists and blacklists. Features pointing toward a pseudo journal were identified as red flag signs for these journals and were noted. A literature search was performed on open access publishing and predatory journals, and the salient points were noted. A checklist of red flag signs was compiled. Results: A total of 71 emails soliciting article submissions from 68 journals were received by the three urologists (APS, AS, KP). Of these, 54 were highly suggestive of being a pseudojournal, 5 journals were operating in the gray zone between genuine open access journals and outright predatory journals, and 9 were genuine open access journals. A total of 33 articles on predatory journals were reviewed after the literature search as per the PRISMA guidelines. The red flag signs identified along with the literature review were used to create the SAFEiMAP checklist, which can be used to identify predatory journals. Conclusion: Predatory journals have infiltrated the whitelists, and the indexing databases like PubMed and no blacklist is all-inclusive. Understanding the concept and the types of open access publishing gives the researchers a better idea on how to differentiate fake journals from the genuine ones. Using a checklist will help to identify the red flag signs of such journals and identify those journals that operate in the gray zone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]