Back to Authors

Judge, Nathanael

Mayo Clinic

Michigan Technological University

Citations 2

Are adverse events during surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia device related? A review of the MAUDE database
Heidenberg, Daniel , Nethery, Ethan, Wymer, Kevin , Judge, Nathanael, Cheney, Scott, Stern, Karen , Humphreys, Mitchell R. , Heidenberg, Daniel J , Cheney, Scott M, Stern, Karen L

Urologia Journal | March 23, 2024 | Volume: 91 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 249-255

10.1177/03915603241240646 Get It

Purpose: The Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database contains anonymous, voluntary medical device reports. A review of device-related adverse events associated with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia surgeries was completed. The objective was to evaluate the occurrence and contributing factors to clinically significant complications in a cohort of patients electing to undergo surgical intervention for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Methods: The Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database was queried for “Aquablation, Greenlight Laser, Holmium Laser, Morcellator, Water Vapor Thermal Therapy, Loop Resection, and Prostatic Urethral Lift” from 2018 through 2021. A complication classification system (Level I–IV) based on the Clavien-Dindo system was used to categorize events. These events were then correlated with procedural technology malfunctions and classified as “device related” and “non-device related.” Chi squared analysis was performed to identify associations between procedural technology and complication classification distribution. Results: A total of 873 adverse events were identified. The adverse events were classified into level I (minimal harm) versus levels II–IV (clinically significant). Aquablation ( p < 0.017) and Water Vapor Thermal Therapy ( p < 0.012) were associated with a higher proportion of reports with Level II-IV complications compared with other procedure types. Level II-IV complications were not associated with a reported device related malfunction. Conclusions: Aquablation and water vapor thermal therapy demonstrated noteworthy clinically significant complications which were not driven by device-related malfunctions.
Variation in Lymph Node Yield After Radical Cystectomy
Faraj, Kassem , Judge, Nathanael, Blodgett, Gail, Stanton, Melissa, Tyson, Mark D. , Faraj, Kassem S , Stanton, Melissa L, Chang, Yu‐Hui

American Journal of Clinical Pathology | October 29, 2020 | Volume: 156 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 391-398

10.1093/ajcp/aqaa247 Get It

Abstract Objectives To test the hypothesis that lymph node yield will vary by pathology assistant (PA) in patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). Methods This is a single-institution retrospective review that included patients who underwent an RC with PLND for bladder cancer from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2018. Predicted mean lymph node counts were generated using multivariable regression analysis. Results In a total of 430 patients who underwent RC with PLND, the median lymph node count (interquartile range) was 15.0 (11.0-21.0). The frequency of the limits of lymphadenectomy was as follows: external iliac, internal iliac, and obturator (true pelvis) (33.3%); true pelvis plus common iliac to the level of the aortic bifurcation (47.9%); and inferior mesenteric artery (18.8%). On descriptive analysis, there were differences in lymph node yield when evaluating the following variables: level of dissection, clinical stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgical approach, surgeon, pathologist, and PA (P &lt; .05). On multivariable analysis, adjusted lymph node counts varied between surgeons, pathologists, clinical stage, and level of dissection but not by PA (P = .18). Conclusions Lymph node yield after RC varies on several known levels, including surgeon, extent of lymphadenectomy, clinical stage, and pathologist. This study found no significant variation in lymph node yield according to PA.