Introduction and objectives To determine how robotic prostatectomy affects practice patterns of urologists, we examined the case volume characteristics among certifying urologists for the surgical treatment of prostate cancer. We hypothesized that the utilization of open and robotic prostatectomy as well as lymph node dissection changed dynamically over the last 10 years. Methods Six month case log data of certifying urologists from 2003 to 2013 were obtained for the American Board of Urology. Cases were identified using CPT codes for open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparosopic or robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) with a corresponding diagnosis of prostate cancer as defined by ICD-9 code 185.0. Results obtained A total of 6,563 urologists submitted case logs, of which 68% (4470/6563) reported performing at least one radical prostatectomy (RP), totaling 46,030 RPs logged. There was a 376% increase in the performance of RALP over the study period with robotic volume increasing from 22% of all RP in 2003 to 85% in 2013. Among surgeons performing ORP, the median number performed was 2; of surgeons who performed RALP, the median number performed was 8 (p < 0.001). 39% of surgeons logging ORP performed two or fewer RP while 19% of surgeons who performed RALP performed 2 or less RP (p < 0.001). The highest volume robotic surgeons (top 10% surgical volume) performed 41% of all RALP with the highest performing robotic surgeon recording 658 prostatectomies over 6 months. Oncologists represented 4.1% of all surgeons performing RP and performed 15.1% of all RP (p < 0.001); general urologists performed the majority of RP (57.8%). When performed open, there was no influence of surgeon specialty on the performance of lymph node dissection (LND); if performed robotically, oncologists were significantly more likely to perform LND compared to general surgeons (47% vs. 25.9% respectively, p < 0.001). Conclusions Robotic prostatectomies are performed five-times more commonly than open prostatectomy and represent 85% of all RP performed by board-certified urologists in 2013. Compared to RALP, ORP are significantly more likely to be performed by lower volume surgeons. Oncologists perform a higher relative percentage of RPs and are significantly more likely to perform LND if performed robotically when compared to general urologists.

No abstract

Purpose:We systematically reviewed the variability in definitions of kidney abnormality (KA) outcomes in individuals with spina bifida (SB).Materials and Methods:A systematic scoping review was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase™, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycInfo®, Web of Science™ and ClinicalTrials.gov for articles from time of database inception to September 2020. No language or patient age restrictions were applied. Primary research articles involving individuals with SB where KA was assessed as an outcome were included. Means of assessing KA and defining KA severity were abstracted.Results:Of 2,034 articles found, 274 were included in the review. Most articles were published after 1990 (63.5%) and included pediatric-only populations (0–18 years; 60.5%). KA outcomes were identified by imaging-based anatomical outcomes (84.7%), serum-based outcomes (44.9%), imaging-based functional outcomes (5.5%), urine-based outcomes (3.3%) and diagnoses of end-stage kidney disease (2.6%) or chronic kidney disease otherwise unspecified (1.8%). Hydronephrosis was the most commonly used specific outcome (64.6%, 177/274) with 19.8% (35/177) of articles defining hydronephrosis severity. Hydronephrosis was used more frequently in articles with pediatric-only populations. Creatinine and cystatin-C were used in 82.1% (101/123) and 17.9% (22/123) of articles reporting serum-based outcomes, respectively, with 32.7% and 50.0% of articles defining estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) severity. Serum-based outcomes were more common in articles including adults >18 years. Measured GFR was assessed in 9.9% (27/274) of articles, with 44.4% (12/27) of articles defining GFR severity.Conclusions:Significant variability exists in how authors define KA with few specifically defining KA severity. Consensus and consistency in defining KA outcomes are needed.

No abstract

No abstract