Introduction: In the province of Quebec, eight pediatric urologists practice in three tertiary centres covering large territories. To improve the availability of pediatric urology to distant families and to reduce the economic burden on them, we examined the chart of all patients attending the pediatric urological outpatient clinic. Our objectives were to evaluate the distance travelled by each urological pediatric outpatient and to report the most frequent urological referral complains. Methods: From July 2016 to June 2017, we retrospectively reviewed the charts of all the 3609 pediatric patients seen in the outpatient urological clinic in CHU de Québec. We specifically focused on the travelling distance covered by families and the purpose of referral. Results: Most patients were boys (78%) and the mean age was 7.2 years. The average one-way distance traveled by each family was 69 km. The patients came more frequently from Capitale-Nationale (63,7%) and Chaudière-Appalaches (21,9%), the closest regions. The most common reasons for consultations were postoperative followups (15%), phimosis and adherences (14%), enuresia (14%), hydronephrosis (13%), micturition disorder (11%), and cryptorchidism and retractile testicles (8%). Of all patients seen for phimosis or cryptorchidism, only 24% and 36% of them, respectively, were scheduled for surgery. Conclusions: Phimosis, cryptorchidism, and voiding disorders are the most frequent pediatric urological reasons for consultation; primary care continuing medical education seems worthwhile. It would, perhaps, be more beneficial for all to have the pediatric urologists travelling to perform clinics and surgeries in distant regions to save more than 300 km round trip to several families.

Introduction: In this study, we compared 18F-FDG-postron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and bone scintigraphy accuracies for the detection of bone metastases for primary staging in high-grade prostate cancer (PCa) patients to determine if 18F-FDG-PET/CT could be used alone as a staging modality. Methods: Men with localized high-grade PCa (n=256, Gleason 8–10, International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grades 4 or 5) were imaged with bone scintigraphy and 18F-FDG-PET/CT. We compared on a per-patient basis the accuracy of the two imaging modalities, taking intermodality agreement as the standard of truth (SOT). Results: 18F-FDG-PET/CT detected at least one bone metastasis in 33 patients compared to only 26 with bone scan. Of the seven false-negative bone scintigraphies, four (57.1%) were solitary metastases (monometastatic), three (42.9%) were oligometastatic (2–4 lesions), and none were plurimetastatic (>4 lesions). Compared to SOT, 18F-FDG-PET/CT showed higher sensitivity and accuracy than bone scintigraphy (100% vs. 78.8%, and 98.7% vs. 98.2%) for the detection of skeletal lesions. Conclusions: 18F-FDG-PET/CT appears similar or better than conventional bone scans to assess for bone metastases in patients newly diagnosed with high-grade PCa. Since intraprostatic FDG-uptake is also a biomarker of failure to radical prostatectomy and that FDG-PET/CT has been shown to be accurate in detecting PCa lymph node metastasis, FDG-PET/CT has the potential to be used as the sole preoperative staging modality in high-grade PCa.

Purpose The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for males with urinary incontinence. It is generally a safe procedure with a high degree of satisfaction. However, there is a lifelong risk of infection and erosion. AUS cuffs are commonly placed around the bulbar urethral area. There is always a risk of trauma and erosion of cuffs with catheterization or endoscopy. At this time, there is little guidance as to which size catheters or scopes can pass through each AUS cuff sizes safely. The goal of this study was to determine which size of catheters/scopes can pass through different cuff sizes safely in an ex vivo setting. Method All AUS cuff sizes available (3.5 cm up to 6.0 cm), catheter sizes between 12 and 22 Fr, and scope sizes 19 Fr flexible/rigid, 21−26 Fr rigid scopes were examined. We used deflated assembled cuffs on the bench (ex vivo) and three different blind observers to measure the free space left between the wall of the cuff and the catheter/scope to be sure that there was consistency. We created a scale from 1 to 3 to determine the ease of passage for each catheter/scope. We also had an MRI radiologist examine bulbar urethra thickness in 20 male patients to determine the average thickness without the bulbospongiosus muscle. Using our average bulbar urethral thickness, we were able to estimate how much free space remained within the urethral lumen and how easy and safe it was to pass each catheter/scope. Results For 3.5 cm cuffs, 12 Fr catheters pass easily and safely, 14−16 Fr catheters and 19 Fr flexible/rigid scopes can pass through with some mild risk of trauma. Larger catheter/scope sizes cannot pass through without a significant risk of trauma. For 4.0 cm cuffs, 12−14 Fr catheters pass easily and safely. 16−18 Fr catheters and 19−21 Fr rigid/flexible scopes can pass with some mild risk of trauma. Larger catheter/scope sizes cannot pass through safely. For 4.5 cm cuffs, 12−18 Fr catheters and 19 Fr flexible/rigid scopes pass easily and safely. 20−22 Fr catheters and 21 Fr rigid scopes can pass with some mild risk of trauma. Larger catheter/scope sizes cannot pass through safely. For 5.0 cm cuffs, 12−22 Fr catheters and 19−21 Fr flexible/rigid scopes can pass easily and safely. 22−26 Fr scopes can pass with some mild risk of trauma. For 5.5 cm cuffs, all catheters/scopes can pass easily and safely. However, the 26 Fr rigid scope can pass with some mild risk of trauma. For 6 cm cuffs, all catheters/scopes examined can pass easily and safely. Conclusion Our study can guide urologists in the management of patients with an AUS who need urethral catheters or endoscopy. These recommendations are based on the measurements of our study along with bulbar urethral thickness. In general, greater caution is needed with smaller cuff sizes (3.5−4.5 cm). Our recommendations, with minimal urethral compression, are purposely conservative and safe to avoid trauma and erosion of the AUS cuffs.

No abstract