Each scoring system outperformed tumor size and location, and may be useful when describing the surgical complexity of renal tumors treated with partial nephrectomy.

Background and Purpose: The discovery of thick, adherent, perinephric sticky fat (PSF) is relatively common during open or laparoscopic retroperitoneal surgery. To our knowledge, however, there has been no previous analysis of clinical or radiographic features associated with the development of PSF or of perioperative outcomes for those patients in whom it is found. Our objective is to analyze potential predictive features and determine whether there is any effect on clinical or pathologic outcomes for patients with perinephric sticky fat. Patients and Methods: Patients undergoing partial nephrectomy or laparoscopic cryoablation with available preoperative imaging were identified from 2005 to 2011. Operative records were reviewed to identify patients with and without PSF. Preoperative images and medical records were examined to obtain patient data regarding potential predictors as well as clinical and pathologic outcomes. Results: A total of 29 patients were identified-16 with PSF and 13 controls. Statistically significant factors associated with PSF included sex, tumor size, presence of perinephric stranding, tumor > 50% exophytic, and thickness of perinephric fat (P < 0.05). Median total operative time for patients with sticky fat was nearly 40 minutes longer than the control group (228 min vs 190 min, P < 0.05). All four (17%) patients with Fuhrman grade 3 or 4 renal-cell carcinoma were from the sticky fat group (P = 0.09). Conclusions: Despite the small sample size, multiple possible factors associated with perinephric sticky fat were identified and may provide guidance for future investigation of this phenomenon.

No abstract

Introduction: Urologists are increasingly exposed to fluoroscopy, which can cause cellular damage. Appropriate awareness and safety precautions concerning fluoroscopy are necessary and likely should be a focus during training. We sought to assess radiation safety knowledge among Urology residents in the United States. Methods: A 19-question survey was constructed to assess radiation safety training, knowledge, behavior, and attitudes. The survey was sent through REDCapÔ (Research Electronic Data Capture) to all Urology program directors and coordinators in the United States with a request to distribute to their residents. The survey was closed after 3 weeks. Results: One hundred thirty-six urology trainees responded during the study period. Thirteen percent learned fluoroscopic radiation safety formally, 46% informally, 35% both informally and formally, and 6% no education. Forty-six percent reported radiation safety being part of their curriculum. When asked about directional X-ray travel and exposure, only 54% answered correctly. Regarding conditions related to radiation exposure, 94% believe infertility is potentially related, 83% cataracts, 93% leukemia and lymphoma, 57% central nervous system tumors, 77% birth defects, and 4% diabetes. Regarding protection, 9% wear lead-lined glasses, 30% dosimeters, 99% thyroid shields, 0% lead gloves, 97% lead apron, 26% lead shield, and 0% nothing. Regarding fluoroscopy machine settings, 7% knew the machine used was set to continuous, 73% pulse, and 21% were unsure. Sixty-six percent had awareness of the directional travel of the machine routinely used. Regarding safety techniques, 99% knew decreasing time and 100% knew wearing protective materials decrease exposure. However, when asked about distance and exposure, 55% answered incorrectly. Most respondents believe radiation safety is important (89%) and desire more formal education (64%). Conclusions: Trainees lack sufficient knowledge in several key areas regarding radiation safety. Formal education may be considered during training and is desired by trainees. This education is likely needed to ensure trainees learn methods to keep them safe during their career.