Tags

Main Content

Top Content

Directory of Key words from the Journal and the latest article from it.

Volume 17, Number 3Case Review

Treatment of Colonic Injury During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Hakan Öztürk

Colonic injury during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) persists despite the advances in technical equipment and interventional radiology techniques. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications, colonic injury is regarded as a stage IVa complication. Currently, the rate of colonic injury ranges between 0.3% and 0.5%, with an unremarkable difference in incidence between supine and prone PCNL procedures. Colon injury is the most significant complication of PCNL. Colonic injury can result in more complicated open exploration of the abdomen, involving colostomy construction. The necessity of a second operation for the closure of the colostomy causes financial and emotional burden on the patients, patients’ relatives, and surgeons. Currently, the majority of colonic injuries occurring during PCNL are retroperitoneal. The primary treatment option is a conservative approach. It must be kept in mind that the time of diagnosis is as important as the diagnosis itself in colonic injury. Surgeons performing PCNL are advised to be conservative when considering exploratory laparotomy and colostomy construction during treatment of colonic injury. We present the case of a 49-year-old woman who underwent left prone PCNL that resulted in retroperitoneal colonic injury, along with a review of the current literature. [Rev Urol. 2015;17(3):194-201 doi: 10.3909/riu0641] © 2015 MedReviews®, LLC

Percutaneous nephrolithotomyPreventionUrolithiasisColonic injuryClavienComplicationManagement

Clinical utilityView Articles

Volume 16, Number 4Review Articles

A Guide for Clinicians in the Evaluation of Emerging Molecular Diagnostics for Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer

Diagnosis Update

Judd W MoulH Jeffrey LawrenceAdam S KibelSteven E CanfieldPhillip G FebboMichael J Kemeter

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is associated with a decline in prostate cancerrelated mortality. However, screening has also led to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of clinically insignificant tumors. Recently, certain national guidelines (eg, US Preventive Services Task Force) have recommended against PSA screening, which may lead to a reverse-stage migration. Although many prostate tumors are indolent at presentation, others are aggressive and are appropriate targets for treatment interventions. Utilization of molecular markers may improve our ability to measure tumor biology and allow better discrimination of indolent and aggressive tumors at diagnosis. Many emerging commercial molecular diagnostic assays have been designed to provide more accurate risk stratification for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Unfamiliarity with molecular diagnostics may make it challenging for some clinicians to navigate and interpret the medical literature to ascertain whether particular assays are appropriately developed and validated for clinical use. Herein, the authors provide a framework for practitioners to use when assessing new tissue-based molecular assays. This review outlines aspects of assay development, clinical and analytic validation and clinical utility studies, and regulatory issues, which collectively determine whether tests (1) are actionable for specific clinical indications, (2) measurably influence treatment decisions, and (3) are sufficiently validated to warrant incorporation into clinical practice. [Rev Urol. 2014;16(4):172-180 doi: 10.3909/riu0644] © 2014 MedReviews®, LLC

Prostate cancerBiomarkerClinical utilityGenomic prostate scoreAdverse pathologyClinical validationMolecular diagnostics

Clinical validationView Articles

Volume 16, Number 4Review Articles

A Guide for Clinicians in the Evaluation of Emerging Molecular Diagnostics for Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer

Diagnosis Update

Judd W MoulH Jeffrey LawrenceAdam S KibelSteven E CanfieldPhillip G FebboMichael J Kemeter

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is associated with a decline in prostate cancerrelated mortality. However, screening has also led to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of clinically insignificant tumors. Recently, certain national guidelines (eg, US Preventive Services Task Force) have recommended against PSA screening, which may lead to a reverse-stage migration. Although many prostate tumors are indolent at presentation, others are aggressive and are appropriate targets for treatment interventions. Utilization of molecular markers may improve our ability to measure tumor biology and allow better discrimination of indolent and aggressive tumors at diagnosis. Many emerging commercial molecular diagnostic assays have been designed to provide more accurate risk stratification for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Unfamiliarity with molecular diagnostics may make it challenging for some clinicians to navigate and interpret the medical literature to ascertain whether particular assays are appropriately developed and validated for clinical use. Herein, the authors provide a framework for practitioners to use when assessing new tissue-based molecular assays. This review outlines aspects of assay development, clinical and analytic validation and clinical utility studies, and regulatory issues, which collectively determine whether tests (1) are actionable for specific clinical indications, (2) measurably influence treatment decisions, and (3) are sufficiently validated to warrant incorporation into clinical practice. [Rev Urol. 2014;16(4):172-180 doi: 10.3909/riu0644] © 2014 MedReviews®, LLC

Prostate cancerBiomarkerClinical utilityGenomic prostate scoreAdverse pathologyClinical validationMolecular diagnostics

CollaborationView Articles

Volume 18, Number 3Review Articles

Urology Group Compensation and Ancillary Service Models in an Era of Value-based Care

Health Care Economics

Dana JacobyNeal D Shore

Changes involving the health care economic landscape have affected physicians’ workflow, productivity, compensation structures, and culture. Ongoing Federal legislation regarding regulatory documentation and imminent payment-changing methodologies have encouraged physician consolidation into larger practices, creating affiliations with hospitals, multidisciplinary medical specialties, and integrated delivery networks. As subspecialization and evolution of care models have accelerated, independent medical groups have broadened ancillary service lines by investing in enterprises that compete with hospital-based (academic and nonacademic) entities, as well as non–physician-owned multispecialty enterprises, for both outpatient and inpatient services. The looming and dramatic shift from volume- to value-based health care compensation will assuredly affect urology group compensation arrangements and productivity formulae. For groups that can implement change rapidly, efficiently, and harmoniously, there will be opportunities to achieve the Triple Aim goals of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, while maintaining a successful medical-financial practice. In summary, implementing new payment algorithms alongside comprehensive care coordination will assist urology groups in addressing the health economic cost and quality challenges that have been historically encountered with fee-for-service systems. Urology group leadership and stakeholders will need to adjust internal processes, methods of care coordination, cultural dependency, and organizational structures in order to create better systems of care and management. In response, ancillary services and patient throughput will need to evolve in order to adequately align quality measurement and reporting systems across provider footprints and patient populations. [Rev Urol. 2016;18(3):143-150 doi: 10.3909/riu0726] © 2016 MedReviews®, LLC

Independent practiceCollaborationValue-based careSpecializationCompensation

Colonic injuryView Articles

Volume 17, Number 3Case Review

Treatment of Colonic Injury During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Hakan Öztürk

Colonic injury during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) persists despite the advances in technical equipment and interventional radiology techniques. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications, colonic injury is regarded as a stage IVa complication. Currently, the rate of colonic injury ranges between 0.3% and 0.5%, with an unremarkable difference in incidence between supine and prone PCNL procedures. Colon injury is the most significant complication of PCNL. Colonic injury can result in more complicated open exploration of the abdomen, involving colostomy construction. The necessity of a second operation for the closure of the colostomy causes financial and emotional burden on the patients, patients’ relatives, and surgeons. Currently, the majority of colonic injuries occurring during PCNL are retroperitoneal. The primary treatment option is a conservative approach. It must be kept in mind that the time of diagnosis is as important as the diagnosis itself in colonic injury. Surgeons performing PCNL are advised to be conservative when considering exploratory laparotomy and colostomy construction during treatment of colonic injury. We present the case of a 49-year-old woman who underwent left prone PCNL that resulted in retroperitoneal colonic injury, along with a review of the current literature. [Rev Urol. 2015;17(3):194-201 doi: 10.3909/riu0641] © 2015 MedReviews®, LLC

Percutaneous nephrolithotomyPreventionUrolithiasisColonic injuryClavienComplicationManagement