New oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are increasingly replacing the use of warfarin in clinical practice. Their use has now also been extended to thromboprophylaxis in many orthopedic surgeries. This, in addition to an increasingly aging population with many complex comorbidities means that these medications will be ever more frequently encountered by urologists. Thus, a clear understanding of the mechanism of action of NOACs, their time to peak action and half-life is essential for the purpose of managing these patients perioperatively. This article demonstrates the patient and procedural variability that must be taken into account in the perioperative management of the anticoagulated patient. While the time to peak onset and half-life of NOACs can aid in determining the interval of interruption of anticoagulation, the risks of thrombosis and bleeding must be assessed before the decision to stop anticoagulation. This article takes into account the evidence available on NOACs in urological surgery in order to inform the perioperative management of these medications and to propose guidelines to aid in clinical decision making. In attempting this, we address the issue of the lack of high-level evidence surrounding NOACs in urological surgery given their relative novelty and the need for further research to better guide practice.

Introduction: We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the long-term durability, incidence of complications, and patient satisfaction outcomes in ileal conduit (IC) and orthotopic neobladder (ONB). Methods: A systematic electronic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus using MeSH and free-text search terms “Urinary diversion” AND “Ileal conduit” AND “Neobladder.” The search concluded June 19, 2018. Inclusion criteria were those patients who had a cystectomy and required urinary diversion by either IC or neobladder. Results: In total, 32 publications met the inclusion criteria. Data were available on 46 787 patients (n=36 719 for IC and n=10 068 for ONB). Meta-analyses showed that IC urinary diversions performed less favorably than ONB in terms of re-operation rates, Clavien-Dindo complications, and mortality rates; odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were 1.76 (1.24, 2.50) p<0.01, 1.16 (1.09, 1.22) p<0.01, and 6.29 (5.30, 7.48) p<0.01, respectively. IC urinary diversion performed better than ONB in relation to urinary tract infection rates and ureteric stricture rates, OR and 95% CI 0.67 (0.58, 0.77) p<0.01 and 0.70 (0.55, 0.89) p<0.01, respectively. Conclusions: Our results show that there is no significantly increased morbidity with ONB compared to IC. Selection of either urinary diversion technique should be based on factors such as tumor stage, comorbidities, surgical experience, and patient acceptance of postoperative sequalae.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract