No abstract

Para-urethral gland carcinoma is a rare urological malignancy that has a male predominance and has an age-adjusted incidence of 1.5–4.3/million. There are various histological subtypes of para-urethral carcinoma, with adenocarcinoma representing only 16.4% of these. Treatment is dependent on site, stage and patient factors. A multimodal approach is often adopted for the treatment of this malignancy. This includes radical surgery based on site of malignancy and there have been various case reports describing the role of adjuvant chemotherapy. However, there is still no agreed recommendation or available evidence for treatment of this infrequently encountered malignancy. The majority of patients present with symptoms of advanced disease and outcomes remain poor. We report a case of para-urethral gland adenocarcinoma presenting as recurrent bulbar urethral stricture and inguinal lymph node metastasis. This case report aims to highlight the rarityof the disease and discuss treatment options for this uncommon urological malignancy.

AimsThe principal aim of this multicentre, international cohort study is to explore the safety concerns of clinicians when performing urodynamic studies (UDS) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study will also assess provider preference on personal protective equipment (PPE) during UDS and awareness of relevant international guidelines. The outcome is to offer a practical means of reducing the risk of aerosol transmis-sion during UDS, to include a protocol for screening patients, and to consider safer methods of inducing urethral leak-point pressure. MethodsA 14-point, multiple-response, online questionnaire was designed through Survey Monkey. This was distributed to healthcare workers involved in UDS via email, WhatsApp, and Twitter. This included, of varying experience; urologists, urogynaecologists, clinical nurse specialists, and clinical scientists across the United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), Australia, Europe, and Middle-East.ResultsThe study was conducted over two weeks and there were 104 responses to the survey. The majority of respondents were consultants (60%) and 73% of respondents performed UDS regularly. There were 56.7% of respondents who felt that UDS was safe to be re-instated and there were 52.8% who did not feel coughing was safe during the procedure. At the time of the survey, 83.5% were unaware of any national or international urological guidelines on the best practice for urodynamics during this era and 52.8% of clinicians stated they would wear PPE during UDS if it were reinstated. ConclusionThe majority of respondents felt safe to reinstate UDS; however, they felt more official guidance and recommendation is needed. Our proposed protocol can provide a safe and practical approach that keeps healthcare workers and patients safe.