Tag Archive for: #BJUI

You are here: / #BJUI

Posts

Prophylaxis against the Paradox of Choice?

/1 Comment/by

My wife recently dropped and smashed her iPhone screen. She didn’t have insurance, and on consultation with her phone provider was told that her only option was to purchase another phone as she was locked into a lease contract. Our initial annoyance was then amplified when we discovered that we could just have the screen fixed privately for a fraction of the cost and effort, which we duly had done.

I began to think of the old Henry Ford adage (1910) in relation to his legendary Model-T edition car “You can have it in any colour as long as its black”, and wondered how often we as urologists might be criticized of adopting a similar approach with patients in their clinics.

Urology has always been a very progressive surgical specialty. Developed in 1909, TURP was the first successful, minimally invasive surgical procedure of the modern era. The first laparoscopic nephrectomy for a renal mass was carried out in 1991 in Johns Hopkins, surprisingly around the same time as the development in robotic (PROBOT) technology for use in urology (Murphy et al. 2006). As technology advanced, fellows and consultants became more sub-specialized in tandem with this change, leading to the large repertoire of treatment options and modalities available today. However, somewhere along the way with the vast change in the playing field, there appeared a concerning pattern of failure to discuss all treatment options with patients, or to refer them to other institutions which may/may not have provided an alternative treatment path. This trend, which is not oncology-specific, can be seen across a number of sub-specialty areas such as the management of renal masses, PUJ obstruction, radical prostatectomy, reconstruction post cystectomy, and even in paediatric urology with hypospadias repair being a classic example.

The question remains as to the reasons why one would not choose to cross-refer. Allowing for variables such as patient choice or consumerism, non-established or experimental procedures, and for urologists that may be financially or institutionally coerced into only providing certain treatments, the concept of not providing cross-referral brings into question whether this is perhaps down to financial considerations, a belief that referrals will not be reciprocated back, leading to a reduction in patient base and de-skilling, or a strong sense of paternalism where the urologist genuinely feels that they can offer a superior treatment package. This theme has previously been shown by Miller et al. who described how many patients with kidney cancer were offered treatment based on the surgeon’s practice style rather than on the characteristics of their disease.

However, given a choice of a number of options, it has previously been shown many times, that patients are more likely to build a strong rapport with the first specialist clinician they meet, and therefore likely to revert back to the first treatment option. Perhaps a lack of cross-referral is based on a pre-emptive sense of patient autonomy. Often the greatest power of autonomy is relinquishing it, and letting the consultant decide the best course of treatment offers the greatest solace. Despite the optimism and favorability of newer technology and techniques, and a general demand for minimally invasive procedures (Duchene et al. 2011), no-one is simply advocating technology for its own sake, or that a robotic-assisted circumcision could be currently seen as acceptable, however the idea of communication, cross-referral and the confidence in asking for further sensible treatment options should always be embraced.

In many ways, our annoyance with the mobile phone screen could have been avoided had the mobile provider been honest, and provided us with further options. It may not have stopped us from fixing the screen elsewhere due to institutional constraints however; a rapport and confidence would have been maintained.

One would do well to find a specialty in which the addition of a constructive (competitive) second opinion has not driven progress. Cross-referral is not a matter of failure, nor a lack of progress, but a continued determination to ensure the highest level of patient care available, to improve patient perception of the specialty as one committed to open communication, and a means to foster concrete inter-institutional relationships. Should we have to document that a second modality opinion was at least sought by the specialist, or waived by the patient?

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place” – G.B. Shaw

Fardod O’Kelly is a Specialist Registrar in Urology at AMNCH, Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland. Twitter @FardodOKelly

 

Editorial: How are we doing with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in England?

/by

Over the past several years, with publications of studies evaluating multiple aspects of nephrolithiasis using large databases, our overview of kidney stone disease has vastly expanded. The most recent addition by Armitage et al. [1], published in this issue of BJUI, gives us a view of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) outcomes in England that we otherwise would have difficulty seeing without tapping into a database study. Several salient features of this investigation are worth pointing out.

With any study comes the uncertainty of its validity. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) theory dictates we first ask ‘Are the results valid?’ rather than ‘What are the results?’. This study reports similar outcomes to a prior database study of the BAUS, giving us confidence that data from different sources still produce somewhat similar outcomes, hence adding validity to both studies [2]. Moreover, it is further reassuring that the type of epidemiological source of the information was derived from completely different origins, i.e. Armitage et al. [1] used an administrative database from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) to create their outcomes while the BAUS used a voluntary online prospective database for British surgeons.

The second question that forms the basis of EBM is ‘What are the results?’. The HES data confirmed several findings of PCNL seen in other studies, including in both international series from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) as well as American administrative database studies using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) [3-5]. Overall complications occur anywhere from 6% to 15% of the time, with the most common complications including infection and bleeding. Compared with these recent studies, the HES study reports lower bleeding, UTI and sepsis rates, which the authors admit could represents an under-reporting phenomenon. Mortality is an exceedingly rare event in all these studies. Overall, complication rates are comparable and give us assurance that they align approximately with other worldwide data. Another important finding with the HES database is the decreased length of stay for patients over time. Lastly, from a physician credentialing standpoint this study has relevant findings. It suggests that the HES administrative database may be a viable source of information to assist in the surgeon validating process.

Weaknesses of administrative database studies include the lack of detail that prospective clinical databases provide. Clinically pertinent PCNL endpoints are inherently absent for both patient and surgical domains. Missing patient information includes stone size, stone-free rates, and patient obesity, which are all reflections of clinical case difficulty. Missing critical surgical information includes where (upper, mid or lower calyx), who (urologist or radiologist) and how (balloon, serial dilators) access is obtained. As mentioned above, the uncertainty of under-coding clinical information always exists.

Why are large database studies, including this article, important? These studies are timely given the recent advocating of retrograde ureteroscopic treatment of large renal calculi [6]. Publication of low complication rates with equal efficacy in an outpatient setting has made ureteroscopic treatment of partial and staghorn renal calculi attractive. Even laparoscopic anatrophic nephrolithotomy has been advocated to further challenge the ‘gold standard’ treatment of PCNL [7]. It is therefore clinically important that British PCNL complication rates are low and that length of stay is decreasing to affirm the role that PCNL has with large renal calculi.

The role of PCNL surgery for renal calculi continues to develop but, more importantly, the value of these large epidemiological studies also continues to grow. They help us to look not only from the ground level but also give us perspective from a different, if not ‘higher’ level, which taken together helps shapes our interpretation of PCNL.

Roger L. Sur

Department of Urology, UC San Diego Health System, San Diego, CA, USA

Read the full article

References

  1. Armitage JN, Withington J, Van der Meulen J et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in England: practice and outcomes described in the hospital episode statistics database. BJU Int 2014; 113: 777–782
  2. Armitage JN, Irving SO, Burgess NA, British Association of Urological Surgeons Section of Endourology. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the United Kingdom: results of a prospective data registry. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 1188–1193
  3. de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M et al. The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 2011; 25: 11–17
  4. Mirheydar HS, Palazzi KL, Derweesh IH, Chang DC, Sur RL. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy use is increasing in the United States: an analysis of trends and complications. J Endourol 2013; 27: 979–983
  5. Ghani KR, Sammon JD, Bhojani N et al. Trends in percutaneous nephrolithotomy use and outcomes in the United States. J Urol 2013; 190: 558–564
  6. Aboumarzouk OM, Monga M, Kata SG, Traxer O, Somani BK. Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stones >2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 2012; 26: 1257–1263
  7. Aminsharifi A, Hadian P, Boveiri K. Laparoscopic anatrophic nephrolithotomy for management of complete staghorn renal stone: clinical efficacy and intermediate-term functional outcome. J Endourol 2013; 27: 573–578

 

Ejaculatory Function and Treatment for Male LUTS due to BPH

/1 Comment/by

This month’s twitter-based international urology journal club discussed “Impact of Medical Treatments for Male LUTS due to BPH on Ejaculatory Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”, published online in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. The discussion was enriched by the participation of Asst. Prof. Giacomo Novara (@giacomonovara) of the University of Padua, the senior author of the paper.

There was general consensus that this was a well constructed paper addressing an important and sometimes neglected side-effect of a group of medications that most urologists use commonly. The principal messages of the paper were:

  1. Ejaculatory dysfunction (EjD) was significantly more common with alphablockers (ABs) in general than placebo
  2. This effect was mainly seen with selective ABs (tamsulosin and sildosin). Non-selective ABs (doxazosin and terazosin) had similar rates of EjD to placebo.
  3. Finasteride and dutasteride both cause EjD, and to a similar extent as each other.
  4. Combination therapy (5ARI + AB) resulted in a three-fold increase in EjD compared to either monotherapy

The authors were congratulated on the amount of work that had obviously gone into the analysis. There was a discussion of some of the technical aspects of how to conduct a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis. The PRISMA guidelines are a mandatory standard, and are recommended to anyone considering undertaking one. @LoebStacy also recommended the Cochrane handbook as a useful source of info. @DrHWoo asked whether Jadad scores had been used to rate RCT quality. They were not used in this study, but are one method of assessing RCT quality for an SR. @chrisfilson and @jleow advocated the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for risk of bias assessment (found in Section 8.5 of the handbook), as an alternative.

After the technical aspects, discussion focussed on how best to avoid EjD in men who are concerned about it. @linton_kate asked whether PDE5 inhibitors were an option in this regard. General consensus was that they are an option, especially where LUTS and erectile dysfunction (ED) coexist, but concerns were expressed about the cost (which varied country by country, but is generally far in excess of the cost of ABs) and by @nickbrookMD about the uncertainty surrounding their mechanism of action for LUTS improvement.

Several correspondants were using PDE5Is in clinical practice for this indication however, including @VMisrai. It was pointed out however, that alfuzosin also offers a reduced risk of EjD compared to other ABs, and is substantially less expensive than PDE5Is. Alfuzosin was not evaluated in this paper, however @giacomonovara agreed that it was an option in men with LUTS who wish to avoid EjD, especially where ED is not a concern. @DrHWoo pointed out the Rosen data demonstrating the correlation between increasing LUTS and decreasing erectile function, but indeed (as suggested by @JCLinMD) treatment of LUTS, e.g. with an AB, may in itself improve erectile function.

Discussion moved on to 5ARIs. @giacomonovara stated that these agents had a broad spectrum of potential effects on ejaculatory/erectile function. @shomik_S raised the issue of whether 5ARIs could cause irreversible sexual side-effects. This is certainly a medicolegal concern, and undoubtedly some men report persistent effects on libido and sexual function, although a firm causal link has not been established.

The medicolegal theme was further explored with a discussion on what to warn patients of when commencing these medications. All were agreed that patients commencing ABs/5ARIs, including those undergoing medical expulsive therapy for stones should be warned about EjD. There was some discussion however, about whether patients commencing a 5ARI should be warned about the increased rates of high-grade prostate cancer seen in the PCPT and REDUCE trials. This increase may be an artefact of more effective cancer detection, but none-the-less @loebStacy was of the opinion that it should be included in pre-treatment counselling.

 

But is all the concern about sexual side-effects justified? It was pointed out that many patients are prepared to tolerate sexual side-effects in return for improvement in their LUTS.

Regardless, this paper from @giacomonovara and co-authors provided useful insight and stimulated a valuable discussion. Undoubtedly, some patients are very concerned about EjD and this paper will help all urologists who treat male LUTS to address these concerns.

Winner of the Best Tweet Prize was David Gillatt for his response to the discussion regarding the needs of various nationalities for PDE5I. Special thanks to the SIU for offering a prize of free registration to the 2014 SIU Congress in Glasgow. Also special thanks to Wiley for allowing open access of the article for the May #urojc discussion.

Ben Jackson has completed urological training in the East Midlands, and is now undertaking a fellowship at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney. His principal clinical interest is urologic oncology.
Twitter @Ben_L_Jackson

 

What’s the diagnosis?

/1 Comment/by

Test yourself against our experts with our weekly quiz. You can type your answers here if you want to compare with our answers, or just click the ‘submit’ button below.

No such quiz/survey/poll
If you have a suggestion for a new Picture Quiz please email us.

 

Reaching a consensus…robotic radical cystectomy

/4 Comments/by

What is your impression of a “consensus statement”? We have these periodically in urology and they do tend to get widely read. One wonders, how difficult could it be for a bunch of urologists to reach a consensus on something?? Especially if, at the end of the day, we are all agreeing to cut something out?! It’s not like radiation or doing nothing are on the cards for this particular topic! How difficult could it be?

Well, let me give you a peak into the workings of the robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) Consensus Conference which took place at the City of Hope Hospital in California last weekend, the findings to be known as “The Pasadena Consensus Statement on RARC”. This two-day conference took place in the beautiful foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in Southern California, and was hosted by Dr. Tim Wilson, Chief of Urology at City of Hope. The event was co-ordinated by the eminent New England Research Institute, led by Dr. Ray Rosen, and funded by a generous philanthropist affiliated with the hospital. The format of the meeting was familiar, as there has already been a Pasadena Consensus Statement on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, which was published in European Urology in 2012 along with four systematic reviews, all of which have been highly-cited. The conference invited a group of leaders in radical cystectomy, open as well as robotic, to participate and the resulting faculty features some highly-published figures in muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including some of the pioneers of RARC. These include:

  • Tim Wilson, City of Hope, California
  • Bernie Bochner, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, New York
  • Peter Wiklund, Karolinska, Sweden
  • Khurshid Guru, Roswell Park, New York
  • Eila Skinner, Stanford University, California
  • Joan Palou, Fundacio-Puigvert, Barcelona
  • Jim Catto, Editor-in-Chief, European Urology, Sheffield
  • Giacomo Novara, Padua, Italy
  • Bertrand Yuh, City of Hope, California
  • Declan Murphy, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne
  • Magnus Annerstedt, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Arnulf Stenzl, Tuebingen, Germany
  • Kevin Chan, City of Hope, California
  • Jim Peabody, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Detroit 

Photo courtesy of Dr Jim Catto.

The goal was to review the current evidence for RARC (by way of systematic reviews and other detailed review), and to agree a “Best Practices” white paper. We had been split into working groups and had submitted slides overviewing our topics ahead of time. The two-day schedule then allowed presentation of these slides with (very) detailed critique and discussion. Systematic review maestro Giacomo Novara had worked with Bertrand Yuh to complete the systematic reviews prior to the conference and findings from these also informed much discussion. Bernie Bochner (the most knowledgeable person I have ever met on the topic of muscle-invasive bladder cancer!), kindly agreed to present the findings from the MSKCC randomised controlled trial which are key data in this area. This paper is about to be submitted so the Pasadena group will be able to include these findings in the final papers.

So was it a cosy chat in the Californian sunshine with much nodding of heads on key topics? Well, occasionally! The group were very sociable with very lively interaction, but there was certainly robust discussion on certain topics. Some of these leaked out on Twitter as one might expect with a few prominent uro-twitterati in the room (@jimcatto, @giacomonovara, @declangmurphy, @joanfundi, @AStenzl, @jamesopeabody), and with a lively response from social media enthusiasts from around the world getting involved in the #RARC conversation (@dytcmd, @@uretericbud, @daviesbj, @dmsomford, @matthayn, @kahmed198, @uroegg, @UROncdoc, @urogill, @urorao, @nickbrookMD, @joshmeeks, @wandering_gu, @urologymatch, @urology_verona, @chrisfilson, @mattbultitude, @clebacle, @chapinMD, @ggandaglia, @urogeek, and more) – every corner of the globe involved!

At certain times, the weight of data for open radical cystectomy was difficult to counter, and led to lively discussion between Bernie and Khurshid. For confidentiality reasons, we can’t reveal key findings until the final papers have been written and published, but Twitter does allow a sneak peak:

A general lament was the lack of high-quality data overall, as tweeted in this quote from Arnulf Stenzl:

However, some of the big publications from the pioneering centres, especially the data from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium (IRCC), and the RCT from Memorial have given us plenty to consider.

Having been involved in another large consensus statement recently (The Melbourne Consensus Statement on the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer), I can tell you that these statements feature very robust discussion before consensus is reached, and occasionally consensus is not reached leading to topics being omitted. The chosen faculty for such statements are highly-knowledgeable leaders in the field, but often have views which are highly discordant. The Chair has a great challenge to moderate so that the final statements are agreeable to all, and I am sure that the Pasadena Statement on RARC will prove of great interest to all working in this field.

[The Pasadena Consensus Statement Best Practices white paper will be published in European Urology in coming months, along with two systematic reviews and a Surgery in Motion technique paper]

Declan Murphy is a urologist at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia, and Associate Editor at BJUI. Twitter @declangmurphy

Disclosure – Declan Murphy received support to cover travel and accommodation costs through the New England Research Institute. No industry support was received by any participants in this conference.

 

Brown Sauce and honest reporting

/6 Comments/by

The British are fond of a condiment called Brown Sauce. The product itself leaves me unmoved, but the thing I find interesting about Brown Sauce is that it purports nothing about itself whatsoever, other than a description of its colour. It claims no link to any known product of nature, just a factual statement about its appearance. Consider, for instance, tomato ketchup. If an independent lab discovers that a ketchup is, in fact, only 5% tomato and 95% starch, sugar, salt, and flavor enhancer 621, people will be justifiably irate about the “tomato” claim. If, on the other hand, Brown Sauce is eventually proven to be made from asbestos and drowned kittens, the manufacturers can quite rightly state that they only said it was brown.

The same kind of plain speech is often missing in surgery. The truth has often been a casualty in the patient consent process due to a combination of ignorance, fear, avarice, or ego on the part of the surgeon. Whatever the motivation, when we explain rates of risks and benefits to the patient before us, many of us are not giving an honest report of our own outcomes. In the case of the battle between robotic and open radical prostatectomy, for example, real-world complication rates are often ignored in favour of Walsh’s rates on one side, and Patel’s on the other. Surgeons are certainly not all the same. If you have ever considered who you would allow to perform surgery on yourself the chances are you have written a very short short-list. When we tell a patient that the rate of complication x from procedure y is only 5% and we have not audited our own outcomes, we are likely giving the rates produced by the high-volume specialist centres that had the expertise, numbers, and clout to get their rates published in a reputable journal. Most surgeons do not work in those centres.

There is an on-going debate on whether hospitals should be compelled to publish their procedure-specific outcome data, so that the public can make informed decisions about their surgical care. I think this misses the point. Yes, there are potential hazards to compulsory publishing; centres of excellence may have worse outcomes than others due to operating on the sickest patients with the slimmest hopes of success, one major complication in a lower volume centre can skew the data, and there is the potential to develop a culture of suspicion and dishonesty, but the real point is more personal. We should honestly report to the patient in front of us from our own results as a matter of honesty and ethics, regardless of hospital policies. We can then (hopefully) reassure them that our outcomes are comparable to those published, and they can expect good quality care from us. If we cannot reassure them of this, our audit process will inform us of our shortcomings and we can seek to address them. We might even consider leaving certain procedures to a colleague who is better at it than us. A bitter pill, maybe, but arrogance is the enemy of improvement.

It can be a nuisance to collect and collate operative data. It can be painful to discover that we are not as good at something as we had assumed. Thankfully surgeons are mature adults who can take these challenges on the chin, and use the results to make our patient care better. Can’t we?

Otherwise, the information we give our patients is “pork-pies”, which is Cockney rhyming slang for lies, and no amount of Brown Sauce can make those pies palatable.

James Duthie is a Urological Surgeon/Robotic Surgeon. Interested in Human Factors Engineering, training & error, and making people better through electronic means. Melbourne, Australia @Jamesduthie1

 

Flying high as a kite

/1 Comment/by

Some of my happiest memories are from my childhood. Part of it was spent in Lucknow where my mother had her ancestral home. An important city in Northern India, Lucknow was the seat of the Nawabs who built many beautiful palaces. One of these has a labyrinth, which many have entered only to get lost within its many chambers. Another, the Chhota Imambara is pictured on the cover. Lucknow is also famous for its cuisine with street vendors selling tasty kebabs. Above all, I remember many hours perched on the roof top of our home in the old town, flying kites, with my family. The sky above became a riot of colours. Today there is even a touring company offering nostalgic kite flying holidays in this ancient city.

In May, our Article of the Month comes from the King George Medical University, Lucknow. In a prospective, longitudinal comparison over six years, of a large number of patients undergoing urinary diversion after radical cystectomy, the authors demonstrate better quality of life after orthotopic neobladder rather than ileal conduit formation [1]. The mean age of the patients was in the mid 50s, which is perhaps why a significant number underwent neobladder formation. This article and the accompanying editorial from Urs Studer [2] are must reads for anyone involved in the management of bladder cancer. In the UK many of our patients are generally older with multiple co-morbidities and end up having ileal conduits. For the younger patients it is perhaps time for a rethink?

We also feature an excellent multi-institutional collaboration reporting on PCNL outcomes in England from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database over a five year period. Mortality is rare after this procedure but 9% of patients have a readmission within 30 days [3]. While the HES like most other databases has its inherent limitations, the authors should be congratulated for analysing complex outcomes on nearly 6000 patients; in particular John Withington who is writing his thesis on the subject.

And finally – an invitation. If you are attending the AUA, we are again having a BAUS–BJUI–USANZ session on the afternoon of the 18 May. The faculty is international and the program even more exciting than it was last year. This is a further testament to the strong friendship that exists between our organisations and the AUA. The Coffey–Krane prize for the best paper published in the BJUI by a trainee, will be presented at the end of this session followed by the BJUI reception.

Many of you have loved our new design, layout and quality although this has led to a precipitous drop in our acceptance rate in favour of only the very best papers. Thank you for your support, which has given us the strength and resolve to fly high. The sky is the limit.

Prof. Prokar Dasgupta
Editor-in-Chief, BJUI
King’s College London, Guy’s Hospital#

References

  1. Singh V, Yadav R, Sinha RJ, Gupta DK. Prospective comparison of quality-of-life outcomes between ileal conduit urinary diversion and orthotopic neobladder reconstruction after radical cystectomy: a statistical model. BJU Int 2014; 113: 726–732
  2. Studer UE. Life is good with orthotopic bladder substitutes! BJU Int 2014; 113: 686–687
  3. Armitage JN, Withington J, van der Meulen J, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in England: practice and outcomes described in the Hospital Episode Statistics database. BJU Int 2014; 113: 777–782

 

A word of advice

/2 Comments/by

I saw a patient recently who presented with a number of different symptoms on the background of a complex past medical history. I rang my senior who quoted me these words,

“Sometimes the questions are complicated but the answers are simple”

I’ll tell you where he got that quote from later

One CT scan later we had our diagnosis but it got me thinking about the advice we receive from senior colleagues.

 


During our formal urology training we are mentored by urologists who at times impart advice to enable us to become better. The words spoken in a timely manner or often a repeated manner can become etched into a young surgeon’s mind. 

Now for 2 stories:

Early in my surgical training I sat dejected in the professor’s office. A life threatening complication had occurred in one of our team’s patients after major open surgery. I was ready to throw the towel in, to no longer perform large operations to therefore avoid complications. I would be safe if I only ever performed minor procedures for the rest of my career.

“There are no such things as small surgeries only small surgeons”.

Spoken by one who had been there and done that and come out the other side. Years later near the end of my training I was lucky to operate again with this surgeon and thanked him for his words of advice. However as often happens in a moment of stress, similar I imagine to the moment a diehard fan meets their rock star idol, I proudly repeated back his words only for him to correct me again, as I had spoken them in the wrong order.

Story two took place after a Saturday ward round over coffee. Real coffee – (flat whites as we call them in New Zealand) in the hospital café where there was time to talk – no theatre list, no private clinic to rush off to.

“The cheapest mistake you will ever make is the complications of others”

I was implored to chase after the complications that happen to all patients in the hospital. So as to learn as much from them and how they were managed to avoid it in my own practice in the future. It challenged me to investigate, to read, to apply knowledge, to sit up in the monthly audit and to ask questions of why things happen. 

3 statements have helped guide my surgical training. Said in isolation they mean little and could even sound cliché. However coming from a respected mentor at an appropriate time in a personalised fashion they have proved of immense value. And the further beauty is they will have repeated value as I attempt to pass them on in the future. Which brings me back to the opening statement and the whereabouts of its origins. Indeed those words were not my consultants own but rather that of another doctor. Dr. Seuss to be exact and it only goes to show that advice is often where you least expect it.

(On further research I wonder if this is where he actually got the statement from

Advice’s You Need to Know About Hair Loss, According to Dermatologists

hair loss
SAKSIT SRISUKSAI / EYEEMGETTY IMAGES

If you’ve noticed patchy or thinning spots on your scalp or a surplus of hair strands on your hairbrush or in the shower, you’re not alone. More than half of all women will experience noticeable hair loss, according to the Cleveland Clinic. In order to put a stop to shedding, though, you have to figure out the root of the problem. “Hair loss is not a diagnosis,” says Yolanda Lenzy, M.D., M.P.H.,board-certified dermatologist and licensed cosmetologist in Chicopee, Massachusetts. “Hair loss is a symptom. Once you get a specific diagnosis, then you can know the causes associated with that diagnosis.” You can check some of the best dermatologist melbourne on doctor to you site.

For starters, know that the term “alopecia” refers to all kinds of hair loss. There are two main types of alopecia, and then a variety of forms of hair loss within those two categories. In cases of non-scarring or temporary hair loss, the missing hair will eventually grow back. With scarring or permanent hair loss, permanent damage is done to the hair follicles so they won’t grow back. “With scarring hair loss, the goal is not for it to grow back, but to stop the progression,” says Dr. Lenzy. Below, are seven different kinds of alopecia —knowing which one you’re suffering from will help determine the proper treatment.

woman combing hair
GETTY IMAGES

Non-scarring (Reversible) Forms of Hair Loss

Androgenetic alopecia

When people talk about male or female pattern hair loss — typically a receding hair line in men or thinning at the crown in women — that’s androgenetic alopecia. It’s the most common form of hair loss among all people. In fact, research shows that more than 50% of women will develop androgenetic alopecia by the age of 80. “It can come from either side of the family in men or women, skip a generation, and start earlier in the next generation that the one before it,” says dermatologist Carolyn Goh, M.D., Health Sciences Assistant Clinical Professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine and Director of the Hair and Scalp Disorder Clinic at UCLA. “However, some people have pattern hair loss without a family history of it.” While some women start showing signs of androgenetic alopecia in their teenage years, others won’t experience it until their 50s or 60s. “When nearing menopause, the decrease of estrogen means you have unopposed testosterone,” says Dr. Lenzy. “That elevated testosterone can convert to a hormone called dihydrotestosterone (DHT), which contributes to the thinning of the hair follicles — the follicles actually get smaller in this particular form of hair loss.”. If you have straight hair then consister a permed texture you should buy kinky straight hair.

MORE FROM GOOD HOUSEKEEPING

Telogen effluvium

Telogen effluvium is just a fancy name for excessive hair shedding — an annoyance that many people will experience at some point in their life. “A common cause is stress, usually meaning major life stressors or physical stressors like surgery, medication (including over the counter ones and supplements), weight loss, or a death in the family, to name a few,” says Dr. Goh. “It usually starts three to six months after a stressor and then lasts for three to six months.” Hypothyroidism and iron deficiency can also trigger telogen effluvium. “The beautiful thing about it is 70% of your hair strands are still in the anagen or growing phase,” adds Dr. Lenzy. “Because the hair follicles work in a cycle, you won’t go bald.”

Alopecia areata

This type of hair loss affects about 2% of people and usually appears as round smooth circles anywhere on the head without any redness, itching, or pain. “Alopecia areata is thought to be caused by an autoimmune process,” says Dr. Lenzy. “The body’s immune system makes some mistakes and produces T cells that attack hair follicles.”

Traction alopecia

Thinning and bald patches at the temples or where hair is frequently pulled tight can indicate traction alopecia. “This very common form of hair loss is caused by haircare and hairstyle practices — practices which place excessive tension or weight on the follicles like braids, ponytails, hair extensions, or locs.”

Scarring (Permanent) Forms of Hair Loss

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA)

“Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia tends to start on the top of the head with breakage and thinning, and often with some tenderness of the scalp,” says Dr. Goh. “It gradually spreads outward and can cause permanent hair loss.” CCCA is especially common among Black women. “Some recent studies have found that about 25% of people with this form of hair loss have a genetic mutation in one of the proteins that’s responsible for the formation of the hair follicle,” says Dr. Lenzy. On top of that, she notes that the same haircare practices that create tension and cause traction alopecia also contribute to CCCA.

EAU14 – Planning and executing a meeting session: perspective of the chairs

/by

An interview with Prof. Noel Clarke on the EORTC-GU session

For an academic and/or key opinion leader in urology, the opportunity to plan and execute a meeting session is a tremendous honor, but one that comes with numerous challenges. The trivial but not-so trivial aspects involve the logistics: who will attend, who will speak, what do I do if a speaker cancels, what if the speakers do not stick to time, etc. Of course the easiest way to begin is to chair a session comprised of abstracts on a particular theme. This requires mainly the effort of preparing good questions for discussion and how to keep speakers on time (should we be nice?). The next level up is to plan a session with a broader theme that requires inviting specific speakers, framing debates, and then orchestrating it all into very usable take home messages for the audience. These are tremendous opportunities to come up with a vision for our field to consider.

At the EAU 2014, Prof Noel Clarke (GB) from our consulting editorial board was charged to organize the EORTC-GUCG session along with his co-chair Cora Sternberg (IT). I had a few questions for Prof Clarke, but really ended up just handing him my iPhone with the voice memo running and asking him how he went about planning the session:

“What we were trying to do was give a broad-based and sufficiently detailed overview of where we are in relation to different cancers and understanding of different cancer processes. And we tried to do that with specific reference to areas that have been strong in the EORTC-GU group in the past, particularly linking some of the trials that we’ve done with some of the basic science that is currently ongoing. And trying to project that forward as to how we might design future trials. And the emphasis really is on participation of clinicians with scientists and with data centers to try to overcome some of the problems associated with the prosecution of trials in the modern era. Hence our final talk with was Bertrand Tombal’s talk which is really how we would envisage planning and structuring trials as we go forward because it is certainly very different now than it was in the ‘70s when the EORTC was able to do really large scale trials, following on the ‘80s and 90’s to 2000’s [British pronunciation: “naughties”] where increasingly international trial groups, academic groups, found it difficult to get around the problems of finance, beaurocracy, new agents, interactions with Pharma, and so on. So that really was the essence of how we planned our session.”

Wow – what a gem. Didn’t really need a 2nd question.

Figure 1: SPECTApros trial design

  • Prof. George Thalmann spoke on BCG therapy – an area in need of more standardized protocols and biomarkers for sensitivity/resistance. Ultimately we need successful treatment of CIS and prevention of NMIBC recurrence and progression.  The first step towards success is with a high quality TUR that provides correct staging and therapy. On this note, he cited an EORTC study (Brausi et al. Eur Urol 2002) that showed 7.4-45.8% recurrence rates after TUR and adjuvant chemo when taken for first follow-up cysto. Next, the focus is on ideal BCG therapy in terms of timing, schedules and which strain of BCG. He cited RCT’s planed by SWOG and SAKK/EORTC looking at intradermal BCG 3 weeks before intravesical therapy to improve pre-existing immunity. Not all BCG strains perform equally, and there may need to be a prospective comparison. See Figure 2.

Figure 3: Prof. Necchi’s summary slide on the challenges of translational trials

  • Finally, Prof. Bertrand Tombal, Brussels (BE) presented “Next generation trials for urologists and uro-oncologists, where are we headed?” The introductory observation was that we are increasing the gap between what we know through evidence versus what we do in practice – including both things we do without quality evidence and things we do contrary to quality evidence. Specifically, less than 4% of articles in surgical journals are randomized trials, and most of those are evaluating medical therapies rather than surgery itself. Yet research is increasingly complex with regulatory demands, dependence on pharma, and related strategies to focus on large indications. The key recommendations were to raise important questions when it comes to benefit for patients, assess affordability, and bring trials to the patient rather than the other way around. The SPECTApros design was highlighted again with reference to its integration of nomograms predicting a specific outcome, imaging, and biomarker identification/validation.

So that’s the snapshot of the modern EORTC and I look forward to following the progression of these novel trial designs and strategies.

John W. Davis, MD  FACS
Houston, TX, USA
Associate Editor, BJU International

 

© 2024 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.