Skip to main content

Urology

Volume 18, Number 3 - 2016

Volume 18, No 3 - 2016

Table of Contents

Health Economic Impact and Prospective Clinical Utility of Oncotype DX® Genomic Prostate Score
Prostate cancer (CaP) will be diagnosed in approximately 181,000 American men in 2016. Despite the high number of deaths from CaP in the United States, the disease has a protracted natural history and many men diagnosed with CaP will not die of the disease regardless of treatment. Unfortunately, identification of men with truly indolent/nonaggressive CaP is challenging; limitations of conventional diagnostic modalities diminish the ability of physicians to accurately stage every case of CaP based on biopsy results alone. The resulting uncertainty in prognosis may prompt men with low-risk CaP to proceed to morbid and expensive treatments for an unclear survival benefit. Incorporation of the Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) as part of the decision algorithm for patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network very low-risk and low-risk cancer led to a substantial increase in uptake of active surveillance and substantial cost savings. GPS provides physicians and patients with an additional tool in assessing personalized risk and helps guide individual decision making. [Rev Urol. 2016;18(3):123-132 doi: 10.3909/riu0725] © 2016 MedReviews®, LLC
Perioperative Considerations in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Management Update
Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma are complex, with the potential for significant complications, and require extensive pre-, peri-, and postoperative management. This article discusses, in depth, the necessary considerations in the treatment of these patients. [Rev Urol. 2016;18(3):133-142 doi: 10.3909/riu0697] © 2016 MedReviews®, LLC
Urology Group Compensation and Ancillary Service Models in an Era of Value-based Care Health Care Economics
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
Georgia Urology, Atlanta, GA
[Rev Urol. 2016;18(3):154-156 doi: 10.3909/riu0727] © 2016 MedReviews®, LLC
Laparoscopic Cystectomy Coding
[Rev Urol. 2016;18(3):157-158 doi: 10.3909/riu0728] © 2016 MedReviews®, LLC
Highlights From the 2016 American Urological Association Annual Meeting
More than 2000 posters, abstracts, and videos were presented at the 2016 American Urological Association (AUA) Annual Meeting, held in San Diego, CA, from May 6 to 10, 2016. The editors of Reviews in Urology have culled an enormous volume of information from this premier source and present the findings that are most relevant to the practicing urologist. [Rev Urol. 2016;18(3):159-173 doi:10.3909/riu0717] © 2016 MedReviews®, LLC
A Novel Approach to Mesh Revision After Sacrocolpopexy
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the herniation of pelvic organs to or beyond the vaginal walls. POP affects 50% of parous women; of those women, 11% will need surgery based on bothersome symptoms. Transvaginal mesh has been used for vaginal augmentation since the 1990s. Complications from mesh use are now more prominent, and include chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, vaginal mesh erosion, and urinary and defecatory dysfunction. Presently, there is no consensus regarding treatment of these complications. Reported herein are two cases of women with defecatory dysfunction and pain after sacrocolpopexy who underwent mesh revision procedures performed with both urogynecologic and colorectal surgery. [Rev Urol. 2016;18(3):174-177 doi: 10.3909/riu0698] © 2016 MedReviews®, LLC
A Case of Pelvic Organ Prolapse in the Setting of Cirrhotic Ascites
Ascites is commonly found in patients with liver cirrhosis. Although conservative therapy is often the ideal choice of care with these patients who also have symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse, this may fail and surgical methods may be needed. Literature is limited regarding surgical repair of prolapse in the setting of ascites. The authors present the surgical evaluation and management of a 63-year-old woman with recurrent ascites from liver cirrhosis who failed conservative therapy. With adequate multidisciplinary care and medical optimization, this patient underwent surgical therapy with resolution of her symptomatic prolapse and improved quality of life. [Rev Urol. 2016;18(3):178-180 doi: 10.3909/riu0702] © 2016 MedReviews®, LLC