Search

Introduction: Crowdfunding is becoming an increasingly used resource for patients to cover costs related to medical care. These costs can be related directly to treatments or indirectly to loss of income or travel-related costs. Little is known as to the extent of which crowdfunding is used for urological disease here in Canada. This study offers a first look at the prevalence of crowdfunding for urological disease and the factors surrounding its use. Methods: In January 2020, we queried the GoFundMe internal search engine for fundraising campaigns regarding urological ailments. Results were categorized according to the major organs of urological disease. Results: Crowdfunding campaigns are very prevalent within several areas of urology. Prostate cancer and chronic kidney disease represent the most frequent reason for campaigns. Fundraising goals and actual funds raised for malignant disease were significantly more than for benign disease. Interestingly, there was a significant portion of crowdfunding campaigns to cover costs for non-conventional treatments and transplant tourism. Conclusion: Crowdfunding use to help cover direct and indirect costs of medical care is becoming increasingly apparent through several facets of medicine. This study shows that this statement holds true when looking at patients with urological disease in Canada. As urologists, we need to be aware of this trend, as it highlights the often-unforeseen financial burdens experienced by our patients.

Introduction: We sought to determine whether protocol biopsies could be used to guide treatment and improve outcomes in simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) patients.Methods: Between 2004 and 2013, protocol biopsies were performed on SPK patients at 3–6 months and one year post-transplant. Maintenance immunosuppression consisted of a calcineurin inhibitor, anti-proliferative agent, and corticosteroid. Corticosteroid was withdrawn in negative early biopsies, maintained in subclinical/ borderline biopsies, and increased if Banff IB or greater rejection was identified. Endpoints included presence of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy on biopsy at one year (IF/TA), rejection episodes, and renal and pancreas function at five years’ followup.Results: Forty-one SPK transplant patients were reviewed and a total of 75 protocol biopsies were identified. On early biopsy, 51% had negative biopsies, 44% had borderline rejection, and 5% had subclinical rejection. Renal and pancreas function were not significantly different at one, two, and five years post-transplant between negative vs. borderline early biopsy patients. No difference in the degree of IF/TA was found between these two groups.Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate protocol biopsies as an investigative tool prior to steroid withdrawal in SPK patients. Our study suggests that there are no detrimental functional or histological effects at five years post-transplant, despite weaning steroids in the negative biopsy group.

Introduction: Participation in scholarly activity is an important tenet of residency training and is firmly entrenched in Canada since the introduction of CanMEDS roles by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. As Canadian residency programs transition to competency- based training, it will remain important to understand how to best implement and encourage scholarly pursuits among resident trainees. The objective of this study was to understand the experiences, attitudes, and barriers that surgical residents face when pursuing research during their training.Methods: An anonymous, cross-sectional, self-report questionnaire was administered to chief residents of all English-speaking urology programs in Canada in 2015. Questions were open- and close-ended, including an agreement score based on a five-point Likert scale. Questions addressed residents’ involvement in and attitudes towards research, as well as their perceptions of the utility of research involvement during training. The residents were also asked about the support they received and potential areas to improve the attainment of this competency. Descriptive and correlative statistics were used to analyze the responses.Results: There was a 100% overall response rate to the questionnaire. This study revealed that Canadian urology residents have a high rate of participation in scholarly work, with the vast majority (94%) publishing at least one manuscript with a mean of four papers. Despite this, there appeared to be significant variation in the respondent’s experiences, including protected time for research. Furthermore, many residents appeared unconvinced of the importance of research involvement, with only 51% agreement that participation was important to their overall training. As well, a significant number of residents reported largely external, rather than internal, motivations for research participation, such as attaining a preferred fellowship (66% agreement). While the majority of respondents felt (66% agreement) that the scholar role was important in residency training, it would appear that significant barriers, including time and mentorship, limited the effectiveness of research participation to gain those competencies.Conclusions: The results of this self-report survey outline the significant differences in attitudes and experience towards mandatory research as a component of scholarship in Canadian urology training programs. As postgraduate medical education evolves, particularly with the uptake of competency-based medical education, programs and residents will need to address the motives and barriers to better foster academic pursuits during urology training.

Introduction: In recent years, the method of vascular control during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has come under scrutiny due to catastrophic consequences of a device failure. This study sought to examine the surgical preferences of Canadian donor surgeons with regards to vascular control and their perception on the safety of these modalities. We also surveyed the experience with device malfunction and their subsequent management during LDN.Methods: An online survey was sent out to donor surgeons registered with the Canadian Society of Transplantation. Surveys were anonymous and voluntary. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the collected responses. Recollection of the sequelae and outcomes from device malfunction were also queried.Results: Twenty-eight of 37 surgeons (76% response rate) responded to the survey. At least one surgeon from every institution in Canada performing LDN responded to the survey. Laparoscopic stapler is the most commonly used device for securing the renal artery (61%) and renal vein (67%). Overall, surgeons felt the stapler was the safest method of securing the renal artery. Stapler misfire and clip slippage were reported by eight (28.5%) and 1 2 (43%) surgeons, respectively. Most cases were salvageable: laparoscopically (30%), open conversion (30%), and by hand port (5%). Slippage of a plastic locking clip resulted in one emergent laparotomy on POD#1 and one stapler misfire was converted to open resulting in donor death.Conclusions: Although rare, hemorrhagic complications can occur from device malfunction resulting in poor outcomes for healthy volunteers undergoing LDN. Surgeons need to remain vigilant when selecting the appropriate modality for vascular control.

Introduction: Renal transplantation remains the gold standard treatment for end-stage renal disease, with living donor kidneys providing the best outcomes in terms of allograft survival. As the number of patients on the waitlist continues to grow, solutions to expand the donor pool are ongoing. A paradigm shift in the eligibility of donors with renal anomalies has been looked at as a potential source to expand the living donor pool. We sought to determine how many patients presented with anatomic renal anomalies at our transplant centre and describe the ex-vivo surgical techniques used to render these kidneys suitable for transplantation.Methods: A retrospective review was performed of all patients referred for surgical suitability to undergo laparoscopic donor nephrectomy between January 2011 and January 2015. Patient charts were analyzed for demographic information, perioperative variables, urological histories, and postoperative outcomes.Results: 96 referrals were identified, of which 81 patients underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Of these patients, 11 (13.6%) were identified as having a renal anomaly that could potentially exclude them from the donation process. These anomalies included five patients with unilateral nephrolithiasis, four patients with large renal cysts (>4 cm diameter), one patient with an angiomyolipoma (AML) and one patient with a calyceal diverticulum filled with stones. A description of the ex-vivo surgical techniques used to correct these renal anomalies is provided.Conclusions: We have shown here that ex-vivo surgical techniques can safely and effectively help correct some of these renal anomalies to render these kidneys transplantable, helping to expand the living donor pool.

Introduction: Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is the standard of care at high-volume renal transplant centres, with benefits over the open approach well-documented in the literature. Herein, we present a retrospective analysis of our single-institution donor nephrectomy series comparing the mini-open donor nephrectomy (mini-ODN) to the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) with regards to operative, donor, and recipient outcomes.Methods: From 2007‒2011, there were 89 cases of mini-ODN, at which point our centre transitioned to LDN; 94 cases were performed from 2011‒2014. In total, 366 patients were reviewed, including donor and recipient pairs. Donor and recipient demographics, intraoperative data, postoperative donor recovery, recipient graft outcomes, and financial cost were assessed comparing the surgical approaches.Results: We demonstrate a reduced estimated blood loss (347.83 vs. 90.3 cc), lower intraoperative complication rate (4 vs. 11) and shorter length of hospital stay (2.4 vs. 3.3 days) for patients in the LDN group. Operative time was significantly longer for the LDN group (108.4 vs. 165.9 minutes), although this did not translate to a longer warm ischemia time (mean 2.0 minutes for each group). The rate of delayed graft function and recipient 12-month creatinine were comparable for ODN and LND. Overall cost of LDN was $684 higher for an uncomplicated admission.Conclusions: Despite a longer surgical time and higher upfront cost, our study supports that LDN yields several advantages over the mini-ODN, with a lower estimated blood loss, fewer intraoperative complications, and shorter length of hospital stay, all while maintaining excellent renal allograft outcomes.

Introduction: In 2013, our institution underwent a change to the undergraduate medical curriculum whereby a clinical urology rotation became mandatory. In this paper, we evaluated the perceived utility and value of this change in the core curriculum.Methods: Third year medical students, required to complete a mandatory 1-week clinical urology rotation, were asked to complete a survey before and after their rotation. Fourth year medical students, not required to complete this rotation, were also asked to complete a questionnaire. Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact test were used for data analysis.Results: In total, 108 third year students rotated through urology during the study period. Of these, 66 (61%) completed the prerotation survey and 54 (50%) completed the post-rotation survey. In total, there were 110 fourth year students. Of these, 44 (40%) completed the questionnaire. After completing their mandatory rotations, students felt more comfortable managing and investigating common urological problems, such as hematuria and renal colic. Students felt they had a better understanding of how to insert a Foley catheter and felt comfortable independently inserting a Foley catheter. Importantly, students felt they knew when to consult urology and were also more likely to consider a career in urology. Compared to fourth year students, third year students felt urology was an important component to a family medicine practice and felt they had a better understanding of when to consult urology. Conclusion: The introduction of a mandatory urology rotation for undergraduate medical students leads to a perceived improvement in fundamental urological knowledge and skill set of rotating students. This mandatory rotation provides a valuable experience that validates its inclusion.

We report a case of an unanticipated intra-operative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) finding of pulmonary artery thromboembolism in a 72yr woman being prepared for radical nephrectomy and caval thrombectomy. Intra-operative TEE performed to evaluate the extent of caval thrombus found the presence of pulmonary artery tumor thromboembolism in an otherwise asymptomatic patient after induction and prior to commencing surgery. A chest Computed Tomography (CT) scan confirmed a large saddle tumor thromboembolus. A multidisciplinary approach was utilized to facilitate radical nephrectomy with caval thrombectomy and pulmonary artery thromboembolectomy. This case shows the importance of adequate perioperative imaging and utilization of intra-operative TEE to evaluate the extent of disease. To our knowledge, we are the first to present a case of RCC with cava tumour thrombus in which the pulmonary artery tumour thromboembolism was detected incidentally on intraoperative TEE.

This study helps to shed light on a long-standing dilemma in renal transplant surgery: whether to remove the peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter at the time of transplant surgery or to leave it in place until established renal allograft function down the road.1 The potential benefits to removing the PD catheter at the time of surgery are that you eliminate the need for a second procedure, as well as avoid the potential complications fraught with having a PD catheter (e.g., infection, peritonitis) as highlighted in this study.1 On the other hand, in the face of delayed graft function (DGF) having PD catheter in place postoperatively leaves the potential to use that catheter for temporizing peritoneal dialysis while waiting for the allograft to recover function.2 However, as pointed out in several studies including this one, peritoneal dialysis in the post-transplant setting is also fraught with a high risk of potential complications, including fluid leakage from the incision if the peritoneum is violated during the transplant surgery.3–5 Therefore, the overall benefit to leaving a PD catheter in place seems to be minimal, especially in the live-donor population of transplants where the DGF rate is exceedingly low. In Winnipeg, we have had a very similar experience with our perioperative PD catheter situations; our new policy is to remove PD catheters on all transplant patients. As pointed out by the authors in this study,1 in the setting of DGF temporary dialysis can be facilitated by a central catheter which is very easy to place and remove and is associated with a low complication rate. In fact, most transplant recipients already have a central line in place at the time of surgery for central venous pressure monitoring and drug administration, so utilizing this line or switching it over to a dialysis line is very convenient. Despite the need for future prospective studies, the evidence points to an overall benefit of PD catheter removal at the time of kidney transplantation. This seems to outweigh the benefits of leaving in the PD catheter. Obviously, every patient and clinical scenario is different and there may be situations were this rule does not apply. Warren and colleagues make a strong case for PD catheter removal at the time of surgery.1