Micro Blog Articles by Henry Rosevear, MD

Not too long ago, surgeons during their training routinely worked over 100 hours a week; there is a reason they were call “house” officers.  

After a tragic incident in 1984 many programs changed to mandatory work hours which limited the amount of time residents could spend in the hospital.  And while it intuitively makes sense that if residents work fewer hours, they will be safer, there was no data that actually supported that concept. In fact, given that the reduction on work hours would necessarily create additional hand offs between on coming and off going residents, some people even hypothesized that reducing work hours would decrease patient safety.  Further, there was a concern that by reducing work hours residency programs would produce less experienced physicians.

Almost thirty years later, the first study that actually looked at the effect of resident work hours on patient safety was just produced in the New England Journal of Medicine (here). 

And the results?  It doesn’t matter.  There appears to be no effect on patient safety based on resident work hours.  The study did not look at the effect of work hours on resident preparation for the real world so the debate will likely continue…

The fact that smoking kills people is well known. Smoking is the direct cause of 1 in 5 deaths in America. Smoking costs the American healthcare system over 300 Billion dollars a year in direct costs. Smoking is bad for you.

Until recently, Americans seemed to be getting the message.  In 2005, 21% of Americans were smokers and in 2017 the number had dropped to 14%.  Way to go America.  But then along came e-cigarettes and vaping and now we’re losing the battle again.

E-cigarettes are electronic devices, some as small as a USB drive, that heat nicotine combine it with flavoring and deliver the product as an aerosol spray to the user. While there is some data that supports the concept that e-cigarettes are better for a person’s health than cigarette smoking, there is NO data that e-cigarette smoking is healthy. Quite the contrary, compared to not smoking at all, there is an incredible amount of data that says that e-cigarettes are dangerous. Nicotine is still highly addictive and has been proven to cause brain damage especially in people under 25.  

And therein lies the problem. 

The manufacturers of these e-cigarette products are actively targeting young people though the use of clever social media advertising and the addition of flavoring such as fruit medley, mango and mint.  Further, the FDA has allowed on line sales of these products with minimal oversight. This is a healthcare disaster and needs to be quickly addressed.

But the solution is not simple; and anyone who says otherwise is wrong.  If an adult current smoker can use an e-cigarette product to transition away from cigarette smoking with the eventual goal of quitting entirely, e-cigarettes are a good thing.  If a child or young adult is hooked on nicotine and suffers irreversible brain damage by using e-cigarettes, that is bad.

Patients, parents, health care providers and politicians need to be fully aware of the massive healthcare risks associated with these products.  Simply raising the age when someone can buy these products while appealing in its simplicity is not the correct answer. Numerous studies have shown that age limits do not change behavior, in fact, there is some data that says raising the legal age to buy cigarettes actually increases the “cool” factor of cigarettes and increases underage usage. Rather steps such as banning flavoring combined with strict rules on advertising and a strong public education push have been shown to help reduce smoking and prevent young adults from ever starting to use these very dangerous products.No one likes being lectured; I understand that.  But as America continues to struggle with how to pay for our massively expensive healthcare system we need to be aware of the numerous ways that we are increasing the costs of healthcare through completely preventable diseases. Not only would America be healthier if no one smoked, just think of what America could do with the 300 billion dollars a year we would save.  

“On April 16, 2019 the FDA ordered all manufacturers of surgical mesh intended for transvaginal repair of anterior compartment prolapse (cystocele) to stop selling and distributing their products immediately.” The full FDA report can be found here.

This is the just the next step in a long and ongoing process as the FDA evaluate the use of surgical mesh. Mesh in urological surgery is commonly used for three conditions:

-transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse

-transabdominal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse

-mesh sling to treat stress urinary incontinence

It is important to note that the recent FDA order only applies to the use of transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and does not in any way change our practice of using mesh in other FDA situations. Further it should be noted that the FDA states that “Women who have received transvaginal mesh for the surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse should continue with their annual and other routine check-ups and follow up care.  There is no need to take additional action.”

I realize that not only are the treatment options available for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse confusing but the recent FDA announcement further muddies the situation. While I do not treat pelvic organ prolapse in my surgical practice, I have numerous partners who are skilled in all of the treatment options available and if any patient has questions regarding their options, please contact my office for a consultation.

There is an opioid crisis in America; of that no one disagrees.  The reasons for the crisis on the other hand are hotly debated.

I was speaking at the Rocky Mountain Urological Society’s annual meeting recently and the lecturer who followed me was Dr. Nicole Miller of Vanderbilt University.  Dr. Miller is an incredible lecturer and one of America’s foremost kidney stone experts.  She gave a talk about post ureteroscopy pain control that changed my practice.

Surgery hurts; and surgeons are not sadists. As a result, I was trained to prescribe narcotics in the immediate post-operative period. Dr. Miller presented unequivocal data that narcotics do not help control post-ureteroscopy pain.

Think about that for a moment.  What a generation of doctors has been doing in an honest effort to help their patients has been wrong.

It turns out that in the post-ureteroscopy setting, a combination of Tylenol, ibuprofen, Tamsulosin and oxybutynin is all that it takes. 

Further it turns out that 1/10 patients who are given narcotics for post-operative pain become addicted to the medications. As a result, I intend to immediately change my practice to dramatically limit the narcotics that I prescribe in the post-ureteroscopy setting and will highly encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

Harnessing a patient’s own immune system to fight off cancer is one of the newest trends in the treatment of cancer in general.  It turns out urologists have been doing this for decades!

In the early 1970’s, it was discovered that by treating patients with certain type of bladder cancer with the BCG virus (a virus related to the virus that causes tuberculosis), the body’s own immune system is able to significantly decrease a patient’s chance of having a recurrence of their bladder cancer!

More recently, further advances have been made in the fight against bladder cancer using immune therapy. It turns that an important part of the immune system is a series of “checkpoints” that prevent the body from attacking itself. Interestingly, many types of cancer including bladder cancer often have mutations in these checkpoints.  Two new drugs Atezolizumab and Nivolumab which target two of these specific check point drugs (PD-L1 and PD-1 respectfully) have shown great promise in treating patients with advanced bladder cancer who have already failed traditional chemotherapy.

If you or a loved one have bladder cancer and are curious about the treatment options available, please call my office at 719 531-7007 and I’ll be glad to sit down and talk about all of your options based on what your goals of treatment are.