Tags

Main Content

Top Content

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

Independent practiceView Articles

Volume 18, Number 3Review Articles

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

Health Care Economics

Neal D ShoreDana Jacoby

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

Inguinal herniaView Articles

Volume 15, Number 1Case Review

Inguinal Bladder Hernia: Four Case Analyses

Kamal MoufidDriss TouitiLezrek Mohamed

A study of four cases presenting as inguinal bladder hernia was performed based on a review of the clinical presentation, circumstances of diagnostics, and surgical management. The mean age of patients was 66.5 years. Presenting symptoms included lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS; three cases) and decrease in scrotal size after voiding (one case). The diagnostic circumstances were incidental finding during investigation for urethral stricture (one case), preoperative discovery on the basis of decrease in scrotal size after voiding (one case), perioperative discovery during standard herniorrhaphy (one case), and peritoneal effusion secondary to bladder injury in the early postoperative period. All patients were managed successfully by replacement of the bladder in its original position and inguinal herniorrhaphy, the Lichtenstein technique (two cases), Shouldice repair (one case), or modified Bassini repair (one case) through the same inguinal incision. For one patient, bladder injury was diagnosed at the time of inguinal herniorrhaphy and repair was promptly made. For another, bladder injury was discovered only at surgical abdominal exploration. Surgical repair led to the resolution of signs and urologic symptoms in all but one patient who needed medical therapy for residual LUTS. An awareness of this possibility on the part of general surgeons should guide preoperative evaluation and therapy appropriately. Even if the preoperative diagnosis is missed, a perioperative diagnosis is crucial to avoid bladder injury during surgery. [Rev Urol. 2013;15(1):32-36 doi: 10.3909/riu0560] © 2013 MedReviews®, LLC

ComplicationsBladderInguinal herniaCystographyHerniorrhaphy

InjectionView Articles

Volume 20, Number 2Review Articles

Botulinum Toxin Use in Neurourology

Systematic Review

Benjamin M BruckerGregory VurtureBenoit PeyronnetXavier GaméVictor W Nitti

The use of botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) has revolutionized the treatment of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) over the past three decades. Initially, it was used as a sphincteric injection for detrusor sphincter dyssynergia but now is used mostly as intradetrusor injection to treat neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO). Its use is supported by high-level-of-evidence studies and it has become the gold-standard treatment for patients with NDO refractory to anticholinergics. Several novelties have emerged in the use of BTX-A in neurourology over the past few years. Although onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®, Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA) remains the only BTX-A for which use is supported by large, multicenter, randomized, controlled trials (RCT), and is therefore the only one to be licensed in the United States and Europe, a second BTX-A, abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport®, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Basking Ridge, NJ), is also supported by high-level-of-evidence studies. Other innovations in the use of BTX-A in neurourology during the past few years include the BTX switch (from abobotulinumtoxinA to onabotulinumtoxinA or the opposite) as a rescue option for primary or secondary failures of intradetrusor BTX-A injection and refinements in intradetrusor injection techniques (number of injection sites, injection into the trigone). There is also a growing interest in long-term failure of BTX-A for NDO and their management, and a possible new indication for urethral sphincter injections. [Rev Urol. 2018;20(2):84–93 doi: 10.3909/riu0792] © 2018 MedReviews®, LLC

Botulinum toxinNeurogenic detrusor overactivitySphincterInjection