Browsing by Author "Szymanski, Konrad"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparison of Intraoperative and Early Postoperative Outcomes of Caudal Versus Dorsal Penile Nerve Blocks for Outpatient Penile Surgeries
    (Elsevier, 2017) Chan, Katherine H.; Shah, Aali; Moser, Elizabeth A.; Szymanski, Konrad; Whittam, Benjamin M.; Misseri, Rosalia; Kaefer, Martin; Rink, Richard; Cain, Mark P.; Urology, School of Medicine
    Objective To compare intraoperative and 1-hour postoperative outcomes in caudal versus dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) patients undergoing penile surgeries. Material and Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of males <10 years old undergoing penile procedures (2013-2015) using the Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network, Pediatric Health Information System databases and our medical records. The primary outcome was a maximum Faces Limbs Activity Crying Consolability pain score > 3. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative/post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) narcotics, pre-incision anesthesia time, adjusted operating room charges and complications. We performed bivariate and multivariable analyses controlling for demographic/procedure characteristics and clustering by surgeon. Results Of 738 patients, (mean age 2.1 years) 74.1% had a caudal. DPNB patients were more likely to have a maximum pain score >3 (19.5% vs. 8.1%, p<0.0001), receive intraoperative (33.0% vs.2.9%, p<0.0001) and PACU narcotics (15.7% vs. 7.5% vs. p=0.0009), had shorter pre-incision anesthesia time (19.5 vs. 27.9 minutes, p<0.0001) and lower adjusted operating room charges ($9,402 vs. $12,760, p<0.0001). In a bivariate logistic regression, DPNB patients had 2.7 times the odds of a maximum pain score > 3 (95% CI 1.7- 4.4, p<0.0001) and 5.2 times the odds of intraoperative/PACU narcotic administration (95% CI 3.3-8.1, p<0.0001). In multivariable analyses, caudal patients had longer pre-incision anesthesia time (27.9 ± 7.4 vs. 19.5 ± 6.6 minutes, p<0.0001) and higher adjusted operating room charges ($12,760 ± 4077 vs. $9,402 ± 3741, p=0.01). Conclusion Caudal blocks may offer a small advantage in the immediate postoperative period although cost-effectiveness is unproven.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The need for specialized training for adults with congenital urologic conditions: differences in opinion among specialties
    (Panstwowy Zaklad Wydawnictw Lekarskich, 2020-03-23) Roth, Joshua; Elliott, Sean; Szymanski, Konrad; Cain, Mark; Misseri, Rosalia; Urology, School of Medicine
    Introduction: The aim of this study was to survey pediatric urology fellowship directors (PFD) and adult reconstruction fellowship directors (AFD) to assess who they believe has sufficient training to care for adults with congenital urologic conditions (ACUC). Material and methods: An online survey was created to assess attitudes towards specific training to care for ACUC. The survey was administered to 27 PFD and 26 AFD [16 from genitourinary reconstructive surgery (GURS) and 10 from female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS)]. Both groups were asked if specific training is warranted, and if general urologists, pediatric urologists or adult reconstructive urologists were sufficiently trained to care for ACUC. Results: A total of 26 (96%) PFD and 10 (39%) AFD completed the survey. All PFD were fellowship trained in pediatrics. Of the AFD, 5 were GURS trained, 4 were FPMRS trained and 1 was not fellowship trained. The majority (65% PFD, 90% AFD) believed specific training is warranted. Few believed general urologists have sufficient training (8% PFD, 20% AFD). Most PFD believed pediatric urologists have sufficient training (85%), but a minority believed those with adult reconstructive training do (40%). Conversely, a minority of AFD believed that pediatric urologists have sufficient training (40%), while those with adult reconstructive training do (FPMRS: 67%, GURS: 60%). Conclusions: Both pediatric and adult reconstructive urologists believe specific training to care for adults with congenital urologic conditions is warranted. Neither group considers the other to be ideally suited to care for this com
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Provider perspectives on shared decision-making regarding hypospadias surgery
    (Elsevier, 2020-06) Chan, Katherine H.; Misseri, Rosalia; Cain, Mark P.; Whittam, Benjamin; Szymanski, Konrad; Kaefer, Martin; Rink, Richard; Cockrum, Brandon; Moore, Courtney; Wiehe, Sarah; Urology, School of Medicine
    Introduction: Many parents experience decisional conflict and decisional regret around hypospadias surgery. The utilization of a shared decision-making (SDM) process may mitigate these issues, however addressing the principal components of the SDM process is a complex task that requires the investment of providers. Objective: The purpose of this study was to facilitate a discussion about SDM anchored on hypospadias with pediatric urology and general pediatric providers to explore perspectives, clinical applications and barriers to adopting SDM in clinical practice. Study design: We conducted two focus groups in order to engage pediatric urology and general pediatric providers in guided discussions about SDM anchored on hypospadias. All activities were audio recorded and professionally transcribed. The transcripts were analyzed by three coders using directed qualitative content analysis techniques to identify themes and relationships between themes to inform the development of an affinity diagram (Extended Summary Figure). Results: Two focus groups were held; one with seven pediatric urology providers in November 2018 and one with ten general pediatric providers in January 2019 (median age 51 years, 88.2% Caucasian, 58.8% female, 70.6% physicians and 29.4% nurse practitioners). Both groups identified some of the key components of SDM including engaging families in decision-making, informing them about treatment options and clarifying values/preferences (Extended Summary Figure). They thought that SDM was useful for discussing preference-sensitive conditions (e.g. hypospadias) and addressing parental compliance. General pediatric providers also suggested that SDM helped them avoid unnecessary referrals to specialists. Both groups identified parental, provider and systemic barriers to the adoption of SDM: a) desire for paternalism, b) misperceptions about medical evidence, c) completion of parental decision-making prior to the clinical visit, d) provider bias/lack of interest and e) time constraints/productivity pressures. Discussion: Providers who care for hypospadias patients are knowledgeable about SDM and its potential clinical applications. They identified several potentially modifiable barriers to the adoption of a SDM process about hypospadias surgery in a pediatric clinical setting. Conclusions: Based on feedback from providers, we plan to implement a hypospadias decision aid early in the parental decision-making process about hypospadias such as in the postpartum unit and at well-child visits in the newborn period and provide a provider training session about SDM to address the identified knowledge gaps.