Browsing by Author "Mahenthiran, Ashorne K."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A single-institution experience with the Optilume Urethral Drug Coated Balloon for management of urethral stricture disease
    (AME, 2024) Mahenthiran, Ashorne K.; Burns, Ramzy T.; Soyster, Mary E.; Black, Morgan; Arnold, Peter J.; Love, Harrison L.; Mellon, Matthew J.; Urology, School of Medicine
    Background: Urethral stricture disease is detrimental to quality of life. The Optilume Urethral Drug Coated Balloon (DCB) offers a solution utilizing a paclitaxel-coated balloon to expand strictures and prevent recurrence. Following the ROBUST trials, it has been proposed that DCB is more effective than conventional endoscopic management for recurrent, small anterior urethral strictures. Our study provides insights into practical applications and outcomes using DCB for urethral stricture disease. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent DCB for urethral strictures at our institution from November 2022 to August 2023 with follow-up evaluated through January 2024. Demographics, stricture characteristics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Primary endpoint was need for repeat intervention as determined by symptomatic burden and subsequently postoperative post-void residual if obtained. Secondary endpoint was complication rate. Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA/BE17.0 software to create Kaplan-Meier curves for time to repeat intervention after treatment with DCB. Results: Of 43 patients, 16 had no prior treatment. The other 27 had endoscopic treatment and of this group, 11 also had additional urethroplasty. Stricture etiologies included 20 iatrogenic, 14 idiopathic, 5 radiation-related, 2 inflammatory, and 2 traumatic. Stricture locations were 2 fossa navicularis, 7 pendulous, 17 bulbar, 7 membranous, 3 prostatic, and 7 bladder neck contractures. Mean balloon dilation lasted 8.4±2.7 minutes. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 150 days postoperatively and the mean duration of follow-up for the cohort was 290.3±87.0 days. The average postoperative post-void residual was 33.4±90.6 milliliters. Two patients had immediate complications: 1 with urinary retention after catheter removal requiring suprapubic tube placement and 1 with urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics. Four patients required repeat interventions: 1 endoscopic dilation, 1 graft urethroplasty, and 2 repeat DCB procedures. Mean time to repeat intervention was 203.5±82.6 days, and no patient required repeat intervention within 145 days of initial surgery. Conclusions: DCB offers a safe and less invasive treatment for both treatment-naïve and recurrent urethral strictures with paclitaxel coating to prevent recurrence. Repeat intervention was not required for 90.7% of our cohort within an average follow-up duration of 9 months postoperatively. As DCB grows in clinical use, investigation into its long-term efficacy is justified.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Effects of coronavirus disease 2019 on the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative arterial procedure registry
    (Elsevier, 2021-06) Natarajan, Jay P.; Mahenthiran, Ashorne K.; Bertges, Daniel J.; Huffman, Kristopher M.; Eldrup-Jorgensen, Jens; Lemmon, Gary W.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    In the present report, we have described the abrupt pivot of Vascular Quality Initiative physician members away from standard clinical practice to a restrictive phase of emergent and urgent vascular procedures in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The Society for Vascular Surgery Patient Safety Organization queried both data managers and physicians in May 2020 to discern the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Approximately three fourths of physicians (74%) had adopted a restrictive operating policy for urgent and emergent cases only. However, one half had considered "time sensitive" elective cases as urgent. Data manager case entry was affected by both low case volumes and low staffing resulting from reassignment or furlough. A sevenfold reduction in arterial Vascular Quality Initiative case volume entry was noted in the first quarter of 2020 compared with the same period in 2019. The downstream consequences of delaying vascular procedures for carotid artery stenosis, aortic aneurysm repair, vascular access, and chronic limb ischemia remain undetermined. Further ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown will likely be amplified if resumption of elective vascular care is delayed beyond a short window of time.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Impact of COVID-19 on the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative Venous Procedure Registries (Varicose Vein and Inferior Vena Cava Filter)
    (Elsevier, 2021) Mahenthiran, Ashorne K.; Natarajan, Jay P.; Bertges, Daniel J.; Huffman, Kristopher M.; Eldrup-Jorgensen, Jens; Lemmon, Gary W.; Surgery, School of Medicine
    In response to the pandemic, an abrupt pivot of Vascular Quality Initiative physician members away from standard clinical practice to a restrictive phase of emergent and urgent vascular procedures occurred. The Society for Vascular Surgery Patient Safety Organization queried both data managers and physicians in May 2020. Approximately three-fourths (74%) of physicians adopted restrictive operating policies for urgent and emergent cases only, whereas one-half proceeded with “time sensitive” elective cases as urgent. Data manager case entry was negatively affected by both low case volumes and staffing due to reassignment or furlough. Venous registry volumes were reduced fivefold in the first quarter of 2020 compared with a similar period in 2019. The consequences of delaying vascular procedures for ambulatory venous practice remain unknown with increased morbidity likely. Challenges to determine venous thromboembolism mortality impact exist given difficulty in verifying “in home and extended care facility” deaths. Further ramifications of a pandemic shutdown will likely be amplified if postponement of elective vascular care extends beyond a short window of time. It will be important to monitor disease progression and case severity as a result of policy shifts adopted locally in response to pandemic surges.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Outcomes of open versus robotic partial nephrectomy: a 20-year single institution experience
    (Springer Nature, 2024-08) Love, Harrison; Yong, Courtney; Slaven, James E.; Mahenthiran, Ashorne K.; Roper, Chinade; Black, Morgan; Zhang, William; Patrick, Elise; DeMichael, Kelly; Wesson, Troy; O'Brien, Sean; Farrell, Rowan; Gardner, Thomas; Masterson, Timothy A.; Boris, Ronald S.; Sundaram, Chandru P.; Urology, School of Medicine
    Robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) has emerged in urologic practice for the management of appropriately sized renal masses. We provide a 20-year comparison of the outcomes of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) versus RPN for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at our institution. An IRB-approved retrospective review was conducted of RCC patients at a single institution from 2000 to 2022 who underwent RPN or OPN. In addition to demographics, procedural details including ischemia and operative time were collected. Oncologic outcomes were evaluated through Kaplan–Meier statistical analysis to determine recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) analysis. 849 patients underwent RPN while 385 underwent OPN. 61% were male with average age of 58.8 ± 12.8 years. Operative time was shorter in the open group (184 vs 200 min, p = 0.002), as was ischemia time (16 vs 19 min, p = 0.047). However, after 2012, RPN became more common than OPN with improving ischemia time. RPN patients had significantly improved RFS (HR 0.45, p = 0.0004) and OS (HR 0.51, p = 0.0016) when controlled for T-stage and margin status. More > pT1 masses were managed with OPN than RPN (11.2 vs 5.4%, p < 0.0001). At our institution, RPN had an increasing incidence with reduced ischemia time compared to OPN over the last 10 years. While higher stage renal masses were more often managed with OPN, selective use of RPN does offer improved oncologic outcomes. Further investigation is needed to evaluate optimization of the selection of RPN versus OPN in the nephron-sparing management of renal masses.