IntroductionWe aimed to investigate irrigation and drainage characteristics of commercially available urethral catheters and determined which catheter offers the best flow characteristics.Material and methodsTwelve different commercially available urethral catheters from three companies (Bard™, Rusch™ and Dover™) were investigated to compare their irrigation and drainage properties. Irrigation port, drainage port and overall cross-sectional areas for a 24Fr 3-way catheter was measured and compared. The maximum (Qmax) and average (Qavg) irrigation and drainage flow rates for each catheter was measured for 20–40 seconds using uroflowmetry. The primary endpoint was to determine which catheter offers optimal irrigation and drainage parameters.ResultsOverall cross-sectional area, irrigation port cross-sectional area, and drainage port cross-sectional area differed significantly for each 24Fr 3-way catheter assessed (p <0.001). The 24Fr 3-way Rusch Simplastic™ catheter consistently demonstrated the greatest maximal flow rate (Qmax: 5 ±0.3 ml/s) and average flow rate (Qavg: 4.6 ±0.2 ml/s) for irrigation. The 24Fr 3-way Dover™ catheter provided the greatest drainage properties (Qmax: 19.7 ±2 ml/s; Q avg: 15.9 ±5 ml/s). In the setting of continuous bladder irrigation, the 24Fr 3-way Rusch Simplastic™ catheter provided the highest irrigation rates (Qmax: 6.6 ±1.8 ml/s; Q avg: 4.6 ±0.9 ml/s).ConclusionsThree-way catheters demonstrate significant differences in their irrigation and drainage characteristics. The type of catheter selected should be based on the appropriate prioritization of efficient bladder irrigation versus efficient bladder drainage.

No abstract

Introduction: We report our experience with sliding-clip splenorrhaphy (SCS), a novel splenic conservation technique, for iatrogenic splenic injury (ISI) during a left radical nephrectomy (RN). We also reviewed the literature on ISI. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data from patients who had RN between January 2005 and December 2013 at our institution. The technique used was similar to sliding-clip renorrhaphy. Our Medline literature identified articles containing "splenic injury during nephrectomy," "iatrogenic splenic injury." "iatrogenic splenectomy," and "splenorrhaphy." Our primary outcome measures included incidence of splenic injury and splenic conservation rate and splenectomy. Results: Among the 370 RN, 140 were left sided. ISI injury occurred in 6 left RN (incidence 1.6% for all nephrectomies, 4.2% for leftsided nephrectomies). All 6 cases had open procedure and for the left-sided procedure. Splenic conservation was attempted in 4 patients using SCS and 3 out of 4 were successfully repaired. Altogether 3 patients had splenectomy (incidence 0.8% for all nephrectomies, 2.1% for left-sided nephrectomies). Our literature review revealed that the incidence of iatrogenic splenectomy during left nephrectomy varies from 1.3% to 13.2%. Conclusions: SCS is an acceptable novel splenic conservation technique due to its ease of use and success in selected patients with ISI. There is little evidence on the true incidence of ISI especially on splenic conservation during nephrectomy. Every attempt at splenic conservation is likely to improve immediate-and long-term patient outcomes.

Emergency urology activity constitutes a large proportion of the workload at our institution. Restricting emergency urology cover would limit essential training opportunities for urology trainees, increases length of stay and delay treatment of urological emergencies. Urology "out of hours" cover is a cost-efficient method of service provision.

No abstract