Introduction and AimsGastrointestinal (GI) complications such as gastric retention (GR) and constipation are common after lung transplantation (LT). Abdominal plain films (APFs) are a low-cost diagnostic tool to detect impaired GI function. The goal of our study was to assess the prevalence of GI pathology seen on APF in lung transplant recipients (LTRs) and to identify associated risk factors.MethodsRetrospective analysis of consecutive LTRs followed up between 2001 and 2013. Demographic, radiographic and clinical data were assessed.Results198 patients were included in the study, 166 thereof had more than 1 APF with a mean number of 5 APFs per patient. 163 patients had a detectable radiographic pathology on APF. The proportion of LTR with GR was highest among cystic fibrosis patients (48.5%). Multivariate regression analysis showed a significant association of diabetes with GR with a trend for age and use of opiates as risk factors. Similarly, female sex, advanced age and diabetes showed a trend to be associated with lower GI tract complications. Almost all patients had suffered from at least 1 episode of lower GI dysmotility during a median follow-up of 5.7 years. No clear correlation between GI events and the development of chronic lung allograft dysfunction could be identified.ConclusionsWe found a statistically significant association of diabetes with GR and a progressive increase in the prevalence of GR over time after LT. Lower GI complications affected >80% of LTR and increased over time. Future studies correlating GI transit with APF findings are needed.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Patients nowadays often search video-sharing platforms for online patient education materials. Since previous assessments of urological videos were limited to English, we systematically assessed the quality of videos on treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), prostate cancer (PCa), and urinary stone disease (USD) in 4 different languages on YouTube using validated instruments. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The search for videos on YouTube addressing treatment options of BPH, PCa, and USD was performed in October 2020 in ­English, French, German, and Italian. Assessed parameters included basic data (e.g., number of views), grade of misinformation, and reporting of conflicts of interest. Quality of content was analyzed using the validated DISCERN questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 240 videos (60 videos in each language) were analyzed. Videos on USD in English had the highest number of views (median views 271,878 [65,313–2,513,007]). The median overall quality of videos assessed showed a <i>moderate</i> quality (2.5–3.4 points out of 5 points for DISCERN item 16). Median total DISCERN score of all videos divided by language showed very similar results: English (39.75 points), French (38 points), German (39.5 points), and Italian (39 points). Comparing the different diseases, videos about BPH showed the highest median scores, especially in German language (median score 43.25 points). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Videos concerning the treatment of BPH, PCa, and USD have a low to moderate quality of content, with no differences seen between the languages assessed. These findings further support the notion of improved patient information materials on video platforms such as YouTube.

No abstract

PURPOSE: To compare in-hospital treatment costs of aquablation and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient data and procedural details were derived from a prospective database. In-hospital costs were calculated using detailed expenditure reports provided by the hospital accounts department. Total costs including those arising from surgical procedures, consumables, personnel and accommodation were analysed for 24 consecutive patients undergoing aquablation and compared with 24 patients undergoing TURP during the same period. Mean total costs and mean costs for individual expense items were compared between treatment groups with t-tests. RESULTS: Mean total costs per patient (± standard deviation) were higher for aquablation at EUR 10,994 ± 2478 than for TURP at EUR 7445 ± 2354. The mean difference of EUR 3549 was statistically significant (p <0.001). Although the mean procedural costs were significantly higher for aquablation (mean difference EUR 3032; p <0.001), costs apart from the procedure were also lower for TURP, but the mean difference of EUR 1627 was not significant (p <0.327). Medical supplies were mainly responsible (mean difference EUR 2057; p <0.001) for the difference in procedural costs. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital costs are significantly higher for aquablation than for TURP, mainly due to higher costs of medical supplies for the procedure. This difference should be taken into consideration, at least in patients for whom the different side effect profiles of both treatments are irrelevant.

No abstract