Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate trends in male urethral and penis/incontinence case volumes among urology residents and assess these for adequate surgical training/competency. METHODS:Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) case logs of urology residents graduating from U.S. programs from 2009 to 2013 were reviewed to determine the surgical volume of select index categories. Male urethral cases encompass urethrectomy and urethroplasty, whereas male penis/incontinence cases include urethral slings and sphincters. Case volumes as "surgeon," "assistant," and "teaching assistant" were reviewed and compared to ACGME minimum requirements. RESULTS:A total of 1032 graduating residents reported case logs. For male urethral surgery, residents reported weighted averages (standard deviation [SD]) of 12.7 (9.0) cases as "surgeon," 1.5 (3.5) cases as "assistant," and 0.2 (1.0) as "teaching assistant." The minimum requirement for these cases is 5. The annual 10th percentiles as "surgeon" ranged from 4 to 5 cases throughout the study period. For male penis/incontinence cases, residents reported weighted averages (SD) of 45.5 (22.7) cases as "surgeon," 3.6 (5.5) cases as "assistant," and 1.5 (3.0) cases as "teaching assistant." The minimum requirement is 10 cases. The 10th percentiles as "surgeon" ranged from 19 to 23 cases. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Although the majority of residents met the minimum standard for these cases, about 10% of residents did not meet the requirement for male urethral surgery. In addition, a review of learning curves for these procedures suggests that the ACGME minimum requirements may be insufficient to confer actual competency in skill. Increasing this number in training or specialized postgraduate training programs is needed to provide actual competency.

OBJECTIVE:To retrospectively validate and compare a modified frailty index predicting adverse outcomes and other risk stratification tools among patients undergoing urologic oncological surgeries. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried from 2005 to 2013 to identify patients undergoing cystectomy, prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and nephroureterectomy. Using the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Frailty Index, 11 variables were matched to the database; 4 were also added because of their relevance in oncology patients. The incidence of mortality, Clavien-Dindo IV complications, and adverse events were assessed with patients grouped according to their modified frailty index score. RESULTS:We identified 41,681 patients who were undergoing surgery for presumed urologic malignancy. Patients with a high frailty index score of >0.20 had a 3.70 odds of a Clavien-Dindo IV event (CI: 2.865-4.788, P<0.0005) and a 5.95 odds of 30-day mortality (CI: 3.72-9.51, P<0.0005) in comparison with nonfrail patients after adjusting for race, sex, age, smoking history, and procedure. Using C-statistics to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the predictive ability of different models per risk stratification tool and the Akaike information criteria to assess for the fit of the models with the data, the modified frailty index was comparable or superior to the Charlson comorbidity index but inferior to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Risk Class in predicting 30-day mortality or Clavien-Dindo IV events. When the modified frailty index was augmented with the American Society of Anesthesiologists Risk Class, the new index was superior in all aspects in comparison to other risk stratification tools. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Existing risk stratification tools may be improved by incorporating variables in our 15-point modified frailty index as well as other factors such as walking speed, exhaustion, and sarcopenia to fully assess frailty. This is relevant in diseases such as kidney and prostate cancer, where surveillance and other nonsurgical interventions exist as alternatives to a potentially complicated surgery. In these scenarios, our modified frailty index augmented by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Risk Class may help inform which patients have increased surgical complications that may outweigh the benefit of surgery although this index needs prospective validation.

BACKGROUND:We sought to determine maximum wait times between biopsy diagnosis and surgery for localized prostate cancer, beyond which the rate of adverse pathologic outcomes is increased. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 4,610 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy between 1990 and 2011. Patients were stratified by biopsy Gleason score and PSA value. For each stratification, χ2 analysis was used to determine the smallest 15-day multiple of surgical delay (e.g., 15, 30, 45…180 days) for which adverse pathologic outcomes were significantly more likely after the time interval than before. Adverse outcomes were defined as positive surgical margins, upgrading from biopsy, upstaging, seminal vesicle invasion, or positive lymph nodes. RESULTS:Two thousand two hundred twelve patients met inclusion criteria. Median delay was 64 days (mean 76, SD 47). One thousand six hundred seventy-five (75.7%), 537 (24.3%), and 60 (2.7%) patients had delays of <=90, >90, and >180 days, respectively. Twenty-six percent were upgraded on final pathology and 23% were upstaged. The positive surgical margin rate was 24.2% and the positive lymph node rate was 1.1%. Significant increases in the proportion of adverse pathological outcomes were found beyond 75 days in the overall cohort (P = 0.03), 150 days for patients with Gleason <=6, and PSA 0-10 (P = 0.038), 60 days for patients with Gleason 7 and PSA >20 (P = 0.032), and 30 days for patients with Gleason 8-10 and PSA 11-20 (0.041). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In low-risk disease, there is a considerable but not unlimited surgical delay which will not adversely impact the rate of adverse pathologic features found. In higher risk disease, this time period is considerably shorter.