Authors

Main Content

Top Content

Directory of Authors from the Journal and their last article.

Simon D WuView Articles

Volume 8, Number 2Review Articles

Pathologic Guidelines for Orthotopic Urinary Diversion in Women With Bladder Cancer: A Review of the Literature

Therapeutic Challenges

John P SteinVannita Simma-ChangSimon D Wu

Orthotopic lower urinary tract reconstruction to the native intact urethra following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer was slower to gain clinical acceptance for women than for men. Until the 1990s, little was known about the natural history of urethral involvement by urothelial carcinoma in women with primary bladder cancer. The increasing availability of pathologic data to define the incidence of and risks for urethral involvement in women sparked an increasing interest in orthotopic diversion in female patients. Pathologic guidelines have been suggested to identify women suitable for orthotopic diversion. Preoperative involvement of the bladder neck is a significant risk factor for secondary tumor of the urethra, but is not an absolute contraindication, as long as full-thickness, intraoperative frozen-section analysis demonstrates no tumor involvement of the proximal urethra. Although less common, anterior vaginal wall tumor involvement may be a significant risk factor for urethral tumor involvement. Other pathologic parameters, including tumor multifocality, carcinoma in situ of the bladder, and tumor grade and stage, do not seem to be absolute contraindications. Long-term follow-up is critical for all patients. Women undergoing orthotopic reconstruction, if appropriately selected, should be assured of an oncologically sound operation and good function with their neobladder. [Rev Urol. 2006;8(2):54-60]

CystectomyOrthotopic urinary diversionOrthotopic neobladderFemale bladdercancerUrethrectomyUrethral recurrence

Soufiane MellasView Articles

Volume 10, Number 2Case Review

Leydig Cell Hyperplasia Revealed by Gynecomastia

Case Review

Mohamed Jamal El FassiMoulay Hassan FarihMohamed Fadl TaziSoufiane Mellas

Leydig cell tumors are rare and represent 1% to 3% of all tumors of the testis. Leydig cell tumors affect males at any age, but there are 2 peak periods of incidence: between 5 and 10 years and between 25 and 35 years. Their main clinical presentation is a testicular mass associated with endocrinal manifestations that are variable according to age and appearance of the tumor. Our patient, a 17-year-old adolescent, presented with an isolated and painless hypertrophy of the right mammary gland. Clinical examination found gynecomastia and no testicular mass. Hormonal levels and tumor markers were normal. Testicular sonography showed an ovular and homogeneous right intratesticular mass 6 mm in diameter. We treated the patient with an inguinal right orchidectomy. The anatomopathological study found a nodule of Leydig cell hyperplasia. The patient recovered without recurrence at 8-month follow-up. The patient opted for mammoplasty 2 months after his orchidectomy rather than wait for the spontaneous gradual regression of his gynecomastia, which requires at least 1 year. Leydig cell hyperplasia manifests in the adult by signs of hypogonadism, most frequently gynecomastia. Although many teams prefer total orchidectomy because of the diagnostic difficulty associated with malignant forms, simple subcapsular orchidectomy should become the first-line treatment, provided it be subsequently followed by close surveillance, as it preserves maximum fertility, and these tumors usually resolve favorably. [Rev Urol. 2008:10(2):164-167]

FertilityTesticular tumorLeydig cell hyperplasiaNonseminomatous germ celltumorsGynecomastia

Stephen A BrassellView Articles

Volume 12, Number 3Review Articles

Venous Thromboembolism in Urologic Surgery: Prophylaxis, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Treatment Update

Kevin R RiceStephen A BrassellDavid G McLeod

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents one of the most common and potentially devastating complications of urologic surgery. With VTE’s rapid onset of symptoms, association with a precipitous clinical course, and high mortality rate, all urologists should be well versed in appropriate prophylaxis, prompt diagnosis, and expeditious treatment. A MEDLINE® search was performed for articles that examined the incidence, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in urologic surgery. Additional articles were reviewed based on cited references. There is a paucity of prospective studies on VTE in the urologic literature with most recommendations for urologic surgery patients being extrapolated from other surgical disciplines. Retrospective studies place VTE incidence rates in major urologic surgeries among the highest reported—highlighting the importance of thromboprophylaxis. Conversely, VTE was rarely reported in association with endoscopic and laparoscopic procedures making mechanical thromboprophylaxis sufficient. Recent literature reveals delayed VTE occurring after hospital discharge to be a persistent threat despite inpatient preoperative prophylaxis. Computed tomographic angiography has emerged as the test of choice for diagnosing pulmonary embolism, whereas lower extremity duplex sonography is recommended for diagnosing deep venous thrombosis. Traditional angiography is rarely used. Treatment of VTE involves therapeutic anticoagulation for various lengths of time based on presence and reversibility of patient risk factors as well as number of events. Perioperative thromboprophylaxis should be considered in all major urologic surgeries. Urologists should be familiar with incidence rates, recommended prophylaxis, appropriate diagnosis, and treatment recommendations for VTE to minimize morbidity and mortality. The limited number of prospective, randomized, controlled trials evaluating the use of thromboprophylaxis in urologic surgery demonstrates the need for further research. [Rev Urol. 2010;12(2/3):e111-e124 doi: 10.3909/riu0472]

Stephen F KappaView Articles

Volume 22, Number 2Review Articles

Implementation of a Centralized, Cost-effective Call Center in a Large Urology Community Practice

Original Research

Gary M KirshStephen F KappaChris McClainKrista WallacePaul CinquinaDon LawsonMary M SmithEarl WalzBrooke Edwards

Call centers provide front-line care and service to patients. This study compared call-answering efficiency and costs between the implementation of an internal, centralized call center (January to July 2019) and previously outsourced call-center services (January to July 2018) for a large urology community practice. Retrospective review of call metrics and cost data was performed. Internal call-center leadership, training, and culture was examined through survey of staff and management. A total of 299,028 calls with an average of 5751 calls per week were answered during the study periods. The Average Speed of Answer (ASA) was 1:42 (min:s) for the outsourced call center and 0:14 for the internal call center (P < 0.001), with 70% of outsourced calls answered under 2 minutes compared with 99% of calls for the internal call center (P < 0.001). The Average Handle Time (AHT) for each outsourced call was 5:32 versus 3:41 for the internal call center (P < 0.001). The total operating expenses were 7.7% lower for the internal call center. Surveys revealed the importance of engaged leadership and staff training with feedback, simplified work algorithms, and expanded clinical roles. We found that internal, centralized call centers may provide a call-answering solution with greater efficiency and lower total operating expense versus an outsourced call center for large surgical practices. A culture that emphasizes continuous improvement and empowers call-center staff with expanded clinical roles may ultimately enhance patient communication and service. [Rev Urol. 2020;22(2):67–74] © 2020 MedReviews®, LLC

Cost effectivenessCall centerTelehealthOrganizational efficiency