[Expert opinion on surgical care pathway management of neurologic patients from Neuro-Urology Committee of the French National Association of Urology (AFU)]

Standardized one-day evaluation before urinary reconstructive surgery for neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: Feasibility and impact on surgical strategy and care pathway

OBJECTIVES

To describe a concept of standardized preoperative one-day evaluation before urinary reconstructive or diversion surgery for the treatment of neurogenic lower urinary tract (LUT) dysfunction, and to evaluate its feasibility and its impact on the care pathway.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent a one-day standardized evaluation before a urinary reconstructive or derivation surgery for the treatment of neurogenic LUT dysfunction between January 2017 and December 2021 in our institution were included. Data were collected retrospectively from standardized reports. The main outcome was the rate of completion of the tests and consultations planned during this evaluation. Secondary outcomes included the findings from the one-day evaluation and changes in the urological surgical strategy at different time points within one year.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-one patients benefited from this one-day standardized evaluation. The overall completeness rate of the data collected was 77.5%, increasing from 62.3% in 2017 to 89.3% in 2021. The urological surgical plan was modified for 19.1% of patients following this preoperative evaluation. The indication was then confirmed for 114 patients (87.0%) by the multidisciplinary meeting and was carried out unchanged during the following year for 89 patients (67.9%). An associated colostomy procedure was proposed for 18.3% of patients and was finally performed in 11.5%.

CONCLUSION

A standardized multidisciplinary preoperative one-day evaluation before performing reconstructive or diversion surgery for the treatment of neurogenic LUT dysfunction seems feasible and makes it possible to optimize the surgical plan and adapt the course of care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

French recommendations for the management of patients with spinal cord injury or at risk of spinal cord injury

OBJECTIVES

To update the French guidelines on the management of trauma patients with spinal cord injury or suspected spinal cord injury.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 27 experts was formed. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the outset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industrial funding (i.e. pharmaceutical, medical devices). The authors were advised to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised.

METHODS

The committee studied twelve questions: (1) What are the indications and arrangements for spinal immobilisation? (2) What are the arrangements for pre-hospital orotracheal intubation? (3) What are the objectives of haemodynamic resuscitation during the lesion assessment, and during the first few days in hospital? (4) What is the best way to manage these patients to improve their long-term prognosis? (5) What is the place of corticosteroid therapy in the initial phase? (6) What are the indications for magnetic resonance imaging in the lesion assessment phase? (7) What is the optimal time for surgical management? (8) What are the best arrangements for orotracheal intubation in the hospital environment? (9) What are the specific conditions for weaning these patients from mechanical ventilation for? (10) What are the procedures for analgesic treatment of these patients? (11) What are the specific arrangements for installing and mobilising these patients? (12) What is the place of early intermittent bladder sampling in these patients? Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format and the evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® Methodology.

RESULTS

The experts' work synthesis and the application of the GRADE method resulted in 19 recommendations. Among the recommendations formalised, 2 have a high level of evidence (GRADE 1+/-) and 12 have a low level of evidence (GRADE 2+/-). For 5 recommendations, the GRADE method could not be applied, resulting in expert advice. After two rounds of scoring and one amendment, strong agreement was reached on all the recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

There was significant agreement among experts on strong recommendations to improve practices for the management of patients with spinal cord injury.