Search

The choice of urinary diversion at cystectomy is a life altering decision. Patient decision aids are clinical tools that promote shared decision making by providing information about management options and helping patients communicate their values. We sought to develop and evaluate a patient decision aid for individuals undergoing cystectomy with urinary diversion.We used the IPDAS (International Patient Decision Aids Standards) to guide a systematic development process. A literature review was performed to determine urinary diversion options and the incidence of outcomes. We created a prototype using the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. A 10-question survey was used to assess patient decision aid acceptability among patients, allied health professionals and urologists. The primary outcome was acceptability of the patient decision aid.Ileal conduit and orthotopic neobladder were included as primary urinary diversion options because they had the most evidence and are most commonly performed. Continent cutaneous diversion was identified as an alternative option. Outcomes specific to ileal conduit were stomal stenosis and parastomal hernia. Outcomes specific to neobladder were daytime and nighttime urinary incontinence and urinary retention. Acceptability testing was completed by 8 urologists, 9 patients and 1 advanced practice nurse. Of the respondents 94% reported that the language was appropriate, 94% reported that the length was adequate and 83% reported that option presentation was balanced. The patient decision aid met all 6 IPDAS defining criteria, all 6 certification criteria and 21 of 23 quality criteria.We created a novel patient decision aid to improve the quality of decisions made by patients when deciding among urinary diversion options. Effectiveness testing will be performed prospectively.

Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an effective hemostatic agent used for the reduction of blood loss and transfusion. However, the safety profile of TXA remains in question due to a potential increased risk of venous thromboembolism. By applying TXA topically as opposed to intravenously, systemic absorption may be reduced and unwanted side-effects mitigated. The objective of our review is to investigate the efficacy and safety of topically applied tranexamic acid compared to both placebo, and the intravenous administration. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science, PubMed, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception to November, 2016. We included randomized controlled trials that compared topical tranexamic acid to either placebo (or standard care) or intravenous administration, in adult patients. Surgical and non-surgical trials were included. Abstract, full-text selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were all performed in duplicate. In total, 67 studies involving 6,034 patients met inclusion criteria. The majority of trials evaluated orthopedic procedures. Compared to placebo, the administration of topical TXA significantly reduced the odds of receiving a blood transfusion (pooled OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.38; P < 0.001) and significantly reduced mean blood loss (WMD -276.6, 95% CI -327.8 to -225.4; P < 0.0001). When compared to the intravenous administration, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of transfusion requirements (pooled OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.46; P=0.88) or blood loss (WMD -21.95, 95% CI -66.61 to 27.71; P=0.34). There was no difference in the odds of developing a venous thromboembolic complication between the topical TXA and control groups (pooled OR=0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.29; P=0.33) or the topical and intravenous groups (pooled OR=0.75, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.46; P=0.40). The topical application of TXA effectively reduces both transfusion risk and blood loss compared to placebo, without increasing thromboembolic risks. There were no major differences between topical and intravenous tranexamic acid with respect to safety and efficacy, and both were superior to placebo with regards to blood loss and transfusion requirements. Further study of the topical application is required outside of the field of orthopedics.

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction with concomitant ureterovesical junction obstruction is a rare condition whose treatment remains challenging [1] , [2] , [3] . Renal ultrasonography and diuretic renogram are universally utilized to assess a patient prior to pyeloplasty; however, the role of retrograde pyelography at the time of pyeloplasty is still debatable [5] , [6] , [7] . Herein, we describe two cases where the use of retrograde pyelography preoperatively helped to avoid pyeloplasty failure by allowing the surgeon to visualize a concurrent ureterovesical junction obstruction, which would not have been visible in the surgical field had the procedure been carried out without intraoperative imaging.