Explore the vast range of titles available.

An estimated 10% of male adults have split or dribbled stream leading to poor hygiene, embarrassment, and inconvenience. There is no current metric that measures male stream deviation. To develop a novel method to measure spray in normal and abnormal anatomical conformations. We developed a novel platform to reliably describe spray. We used cadaveric tissues and 3D Printed models to study the impact of meatal shape on the urinary stream. Cadaveric penile tissue and 3D printed models were affixed to a fluid pump and used to simulate micturition. Dye captured on fabric allowed for spray detection. Spray pattern area, deviation from normal location, and flowrates were recorded. Computational fluid dynamic models were created to study fluid vorticity. Obstructions at the penile tip worsened spray dynamics and reduced flow. Ventral meatotomy improved flowrate (p<0.05) and reduced spray (p<0.05) compared to tips obstructed ventrally, dorsally or in the fossa navicularis. 3D models do not fully reproduce parameters of their parent cadaver material. The average flowrate from 3D model was 10ml/sec less than that of the penis from which it was derived (p = 0.03). Nonetheless, as in cadavers, increasing obstruction in 3D models leads to the same pattern of reduced flowrate and worse spray. Dynamic modeling revealed increasing distal obstruction was correlated to higher relative vorticity observed at the urethral tip. We developed a robust method to measure urine spray in a research setting. Dynamic 3D printed models hold promise as a methodology to study common pathologies in the urethra and corrective surgeries on the urine stream that would not be feasible in patients. These novel methods require further validation, but offer promise as a research and clinical tool.

In order to evaluate the factors that contributed to missed dialysis sessions and increased hospitalizations of hemodialysis patients after Hurricane Katrina, we contacted 386 patients from 9 New Orleans hemodialysis units. Data were collected through structured telephone interviews on socio-demographics, dialysis factors, and evacuation characteristics. Overall, 44% of patients reported missing at least one and almost 17% reported missing 3 or more dialysis sessions. The likelihood of missing 3 or more sessions was greater for those whose dialysis vintage was less than 2 years compared to those for whom it was 5 or more years, who had 38 or fewer billed dialysis sessions compared to those who had 39 or more in the 3 months before the storm, who lived alone before the storm, who were unaware of their dialysis facility's emergency plans, who did not evacuate prior to hurricane landfall, and who were placed in a shelter. The adjusted odds ratio of hospitalization among patients who missed 3 or more compared to those who did not miss any dialysis sessions was 2.16 (95% CI: 1.05–4.43). These findings suggest that when preparing for future disasters more emphasis needs to be placed on patient awareness and early execution of emergency plans.

Background Cancer patients incur high care costs; however, there is a paucity of literature characterizing unmet financial obligations for patients with urologic cancers. Kidney cancer patients are particularly burdened by costs associated with novel systemic treatments. This study aimed to ascertain the characteristics of GoFundMe® crowdfunding campaigns for patients with kidney cancer, in order to better understand the financial needs of this population. Methods We performed a cross‐sectional, quantitative, and qualitative analysis of all kidney cancer GoFundMe® campaigns since 2010. Fundraising metrics such as goal funds and amount raised, were extracted. Eight independent investigators collected patient, disease and campaign‐level variables from campaign stories (κ = 0.72). In addition, we performed a content analysis of campaign narratives spotlighting the primary appeal of the patient's life story. Results A total of 486 GoFundMe® kidney cancer campaigns were reviewed. The median goal funds were 10,000USD [IQR = 5000, 20,000] and the median amount raised was 1450USD [IQR = 578, 4050]. Most campaigns were for adult males (53%) and 62% of adults had children. A minority were for pediatric patients (17%). Thirty‐seven percent of adult patients were primary wage earners and 43% reported losing their job or substantially reducing hours due to illness. Twenty‐nine percent reported no insurance or insufficient coverage. Campaigns most frequently sought funds for medical bills (60%), nonmedical bills (27%), and medical travel (23%). Qualitative campaign narratives mostly emphasized patients’ hardship (46.3%) or high moral character (35.2%). Only 8% of campaigns achieved their target funds. Conclusions Despite fundraising efforts, patients with kidney cancer face persistent financial barriers, incurring both medical and nonmedical cost burdens. This may be compounded by limited or no insurance. Cancer care providers should be aware of financial constraints placed on kidney cancer patients, and consider how these may impact treatment regimens. This work spotlights online crowdfunding campaigns for patients with kidney cancer. By elucidating patient and campaign characteristics, we are able to better understand the financial needs of this population.

Background: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement remains the gold-standard treatment for post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI), despite their need for periodic surgical revision. Objective: To understand the experiences of patients who undergo repeat AUS revisions. Design: Mixed design including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews for thematic analysis. Methods: Men with ⩾2 revisions were collected from a single-institution, retrospective database of AUS patients. Participants were interviewed about their prostatectomy, incontinence, AUS placement, and revisions. A survey was administered utilizing validated tools (e.g., Decision Regret Scale (DRS), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7) for quantitative analysis. Interview transcripts were used for qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Of 26 respondents, 20 completed the interview. Twenty-three men completed the survey. The mean DRS score for prostatectomy was 24 (standard deviation (SD) = 27), indicating low regret. Median Incontinence Impact Questionnaire score was 54 (SD = 27), with 70% of participants describing their PPUI as “severe.” Participants experienced a significant decrease in daily pad usage with AUS placement (5.5 pre-AUS vs 1.4 post-AUS, p < 0.0001). Qualitative analysis revealed themes involving prostatectomy urgency, physician–patient relationships, expectation setting, and quality of follow-up. Most participants (96%) were satisfied with their initial AUS placement and endorsed a positive relationship with their urologist. However, 22% of participants were unaware of device limitations, including the need for revision. Some participants (26%) were uncertain of the status of their AUS, while some participants (35%) desired improved follow-up. Conclusions: Initial improvement and positive experiences with urologists motivate patients to undergo AUS repeat revision. Urologists should emphasize the limitations of the AUS before placement and follow up with patients to evaluate their needs for future care.

Objective Web-based platforms have revolutionized the ability for researchers to perform global survey research. Methods to incentivize participation have been singularly focused on European and North American participants with varied results. With an ever increasing proportion of biomedical research being performed in non-western countries, assessment of novel methods to improve global survey response is timely and necessary. To that end, we created a three-arm nested randomized control trial (RCT) within a prospective cohort study to assess the impact of incentives on survey responsiveness in a global audience of biomedical researchers. Results Email invitations were sent to authors and editors involved in online publishing totaling 2426 participants from 111 countries. Overall we observed a 13.0% response rate: 13.3% for the control group, 14.4% for a group entered to win a gift card, and 11.1% for a group whose participation lead to donation to charity (p = 0.17). Year of publication nor country impacted response rate. Within subgroups, editors were significantly less likely to respond to the survey as compared to authors (6.5% vs. 18.9%; p-value < 0.01). With power to detect a 4.8% difference among groups, we could not detect an impact of incentives on global survey response.

To investigate whether Hurricane Katrina's landfall in August 2005 resulted in excess mortality, we conducted a cohort study of patients who started dialysis between January 2003 and late August 2005 and who received treatment at 94 Katrina-affected clinics in the area. Survival, regardless of patient location after the storm, was followed through February 2006. In adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, Hurricane Katrina (time-varying indicator) was not significantly associated with mortality risk for patients from regions of the Gulf Coast affected by Katrina or those from a subset of 40 New Orleans clinics. Subgroup analyses indicated no significant increased mortality risk by race, income status, or dialysis modality. Sensitivity analyses indicated no significant increased mortality risk for patients from clinics closed for 10 days or longer, patients in their first 90 days of dialysis, or patients not evacuated from the affected areas. Patients remaining in the New Orleans area may have been more vulnerable due to age and comorbidities; however, the change in their mortality risk in the month following the storm was not statistically significant. We suggest that disaster-related education for patients must be ongoing, and that each disaster may present a different set of circumstances and challenges that will require unanticipated response efforts.

Predatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved. Our objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory. Potential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited. A total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall's list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future. Authors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors' increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.

PurposeRefractory urinary incontinence after channel transurethral resection of the prostate (cTURP) (TURP in the setting of prostate cancer) is a rare occurrence treated with artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). We sought to characterize those patients receiving AUS after cTURP and understand device longevity.Materials and methodsWe identified patients who underwent cTURP and AUS placement in SEER-Medicare from 2002 to 2014. We analyzed factors affecting device longevity using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. We performed propensity matching to accurately compare patients receiving AUS after cTURP to those receiving AUS after radical prostatectomy (RP).ResultsFor patients undergoing cTURP, 201 out of 56,957 ultimately underwent AUS placement (< 0.5%). AUS after cTURP incurred a 48.4% rate of reoperation versus 30.9% after RP. Importantly, patients undergoing cTURP were significantly older than those undergoing RP [75 vs. 71 years of age (p < 0.01)]. At 3 years after insertion, 28.2% of patients after RP required reoperation compared to 37.8% of patients post-cTURP (p < 0.01). There were no detectable differences in revision rates for those patients who underwent traditional vs. laser cTURP. Patients with a history of radiation therapy had significantly shorter device survival. Even after propensity matching, patients receiving AUS after cTURP incurred more short-term complications compared to AUS after RP. Differences in device longevity were diminished after propensity match.ConclusionsIn the SEER-Medicare population, AUS after cTURP remains rare. While there is an increased risk of infectious complications, AUS after cTURP fared similarly to AUS after RP in terms of device longevity. A history of radiation therapy leads to worse outcome for all patients.

PurposeComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common amongst cancer patients. However, there is growing concern about its safety and efficacy. Online crowdfunding campaigns represent a unique avenue to understand the cancer patient’s perspective for using CAM or declining conventional cancer therapy (CCT).MethodsFive hundred GoFundMe campaigns from 2012 to 2019 detailing financial need for cancer treatment were randomly selected and reviewed for endorsement of CAM use, reasons for using CAM, and reasons for declining CCT. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patient and campaign characteristics between 250 CAM users and 250 non-CAM users.ResultsCompared to non-CAM users, CAM users were more likely to be female (70% vs. 54%, p < 0.01), to report more stage IV cancer (54% vs. 12%, p < 0.01), and to have a history of delayed, missed, or misdiagnosis (10% vs. 4%, p < 0.01). Reasons for using CAM include endorsing curative/therapeutic effects 212 (85%), pain/stress reduction 137 (55%), and dissatisfaction with current or past medical treatment options 105 (42%). 87 (35%) CAM users that declined CCT reported that they wanted to try to fight off cancer using CAM first 57 (61%), that CCT was too “toxic” to the body 39 (42%), and cancer was already too advanced, so that CCT would be futile or too aggressive 25 (27%).ConclusionCancer patients on GoFundMe using CAM highly value quality of life, comfort, and autonomy. Physicians should educate themselves on CAM to set realistic expectations and provide comprehensive counseling of the risks and benefits of CAM usage to patients who choose to use CAM to either augment or completely replace CCT.

This cohort study assesses patient presentation to subspeciality clinics and whether normal vital signs and abnormal vital signs are addressed.