Our faculty’s research is frequently accepted for inclusion in the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals, with over 330 articles published in 2015 alone. Below you will find the most recent publications.
The abstracts below are updated daily. For a more complete list, please visit this PubMed link.
J Urol. 2019 09;202(3):504-505
Authors: Nayan M, Fleshner N, Bozzo A
PMID: 31166882 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
A fertility needs assessment survey of male cancer patients.
Psychooncology. 2018 12;27(12):2747-2753
Authors: Perez S, Lambert SD, Lee V, Loiselle CG, Chan P, Gupta A, Lo K, Rosberger Z, Zelkowitz P
OBJECTIVE: To describe fertility-related informational needs and practices, and to examine if demographic characteristics are related to these needs and practices.
METHODS: A needs assessment survey was conducted at three Canadian cancer centres.
RESULTS: 192 male cancer patients (Mage = 33.6) completed the survey. Most patients (70%) recalled having had a discussion with a health care provider regarding their fertility and 44% banked their sperm. Patients reported not getting all the information that they wanted, eg, the risk that a future child may have the same type of cancer (78%), and what was covered by insurance plans (71%). Barriers to sperm preservation were urgency to begin cancer treatment (49%), not planning to have a child in the future (47%) and worries that cancer could be passed on to future children (38%). Participants' age and being the parent of a child were significantly associated with having had a discussion about fertility. Participants' age, province, being the parent of a child and the desire for future children were significantly associated with fertility preservation.
CONCLUSIONS: Discussions with health care providers were more frequent, and fertility preservation rates were higher than in past studies, but still not all patients' questions were answered. Misconceptions about passing on cancer to one's child, and that sperm preservation will delay treatment, should be dispelled. Health care providers can ask patients if they have any desire to have children in the future as a way to initiate a discussion of fertility preservation. Key information gaps and psychosocial resource needs are suggested to fully meet male cancer patients' fertility-related concerns.
PMID: 30176700 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Quality improvement in patient safety (QIPS).
J Pediatr Urol. 2018 02;14(1):15
Authors: Koyle MA
PMID: 29548360 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Quality improvement and patient safety: Reality and responsibility from Codman to today.
J Pediatr Urol. 2018 02;14(1):16-19
Authors: Koyle MA, Koyle LCC, Baker GR
Quality improvement and patient safety (QIPS) has become increasingly important in the practice of medicine, particularly since the Institute of Medicine's report, "To Err is Human." Despite surgery having been initially at the forefront in instituting QIPS, there has been a lag in promoting its importance until recently. A short history of QIPS is presented along with an introduction to the SQUIRE guidelines used for standardizing QIPS publications. As surgeons we are becoming even more accountable in promoting value in health care. As such, knowledge of QIPS will become an increasingly important component of our future practices and publications.
PMID: 28988674 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Reduction and standardization of surgical instruments in pediatric inguinal hernia repair.
J Pediatr Urol. 2018 02;14(1):20-24
Authors: Koyle MA, AlQarni N, Odeh R, Butt H, Alkahtani MM, Konstant L, Pendergast L, Koyle LCC, Baker GR
AIM: To standardize and reduce surgical instrumentation by >25% within a 9-month period for pediatric inguinal hernia repair (PIHR), using "improvement science" methodology.
METHODS: We prospectively evaluated instruments used for PIHR in 56 consecutive cases by individual surgeons across two separate subspecialties, pediatric surgery (S) and pediatric urology (U), to measure actual number of instruments used compared with existing practice based on preference cards. Based on this evaluation, a single preference card was developed using only instruments that had been used in >50% of all cases. A subsequent series of 52 cases was analyzed to assess whether the new tray contained the ideal instrumentation. Cycle time (CT), to sterilize and package the instruments, and weights of the trays were measured before and after the intervention. A survey of operating room (OR) nurses and U and S surgeons was conducted before and after the introduction of the standardized tray to assess the impact and perception of standardization.
RESULTS: Prior to creating the standardized tray, a U PIHR tray contained 96 instruments with a weight of 13.5 lbs, while the S set contained 51, weighing 11.2 lbs. The final standardized set comprised 28 instruments and weighed 7.8 lbs. Of 52 PIHRs performed after standardization, in three (6%) instances additional instruments were requested. CT was reduced from 11 to 8 min (U and S respectively) to <5 min for the single tray. Nurses and surgeons reported that quality, safety, and efficiency were improved, and that efforts should continue to standardize instrumentation for other common surgeries.
CONCLUSIONS: Standardization of surgical equipment can be employed across disciplines with the potential to reduce costs and positively impact quality, safety, and efficiencies.
PMID: 28967607 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]