Search

The study attempts to compare the efficacy of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) against open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). The results indicate that the use of MIRP increased and both MIRP and RRP result in significantly lesser blood loss, lower transfusion rates and lesser use of analgesics and better convalescence.

Introduction and Objectives: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is associated with a high risk of intraoperative blood loss and subsequent blood transfusions. The shift in surgical technique from open radical prostatectomy (ORP) to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has resulted in lower operative blood loss, and reduced the need for transfusions. We analyzed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) database to compare real-world, contemporary trends in utilization and timing of blood transfusion following ORP and RARP. Methods: We identified men undergoing both RARP and ORP and then queried for patients who received a blood transfusion in the perioperative period. The outcomes of interest were need and timing of perioperative blood transfusion (PBT), which was categorized into early (postoperative day [POD] ≤1) or late (POD ≥2). Logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables associated with the need and timing for PBT. Results: A total of 16,144 men who underwent RP were identified from 2007 to 2012. The overall PBT rate was 3.1%. Highest rate of transfusions occurred on day of surgery for patients undergoing ORP, and first POD for patients undergoing RARP. On multivariate analysis significant predictors of blood transfusion included history of bleeding disorder (OR: 2.8, p=0.002), preoperative dyspnea (odds ratio [OR]: 1.7, p=0.03), starting hematocrit <42% (OR: 1.9, p<0.001), open approach (OR: 0.09, p<0.001), year of surgery (OR: 0.5, p<0.001), resident involvement (OR: 1.6, p=0.003), and operative time (OR: 4.4, p<0.001). The only predictor of receiving a blood transfusion on POD 2 or later was having the procedure performed through a robot-assisted approach (OR: 3.7, p<0.001). Conclusions: In this study we found that the rate of perioperative transfusions is lower than previously published. A clear separation in timing of transfusion exists based on the utilized surgical approach. It is prudent that surgeons performing RARP be aware of the low, but present risk of a delayed blood transfusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: While robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is associated with shortened convalescence and decreased blood loss over open prostatectomy, little objective data is available regarding postoperative pain/discomfort and use of analgesic medications after RARP. We sought to examine these parameters in a contemporary cohort. Patients and Methods: From 2011 to 2013, patients undergoing RARP were prospectively enrolled in a study to examine various pain parameters and carefully monitor opiate and other analgesic medication use while the patient recovered in the hospital. After discharge, the patients were asked to fill out a daily questionnaire regarding their pain parameters and self-report opiate usage. All questionnaires were based on the Wong-Baker FACES pain rating scale (0-10). Opiate dosages were converted to the approximate oral morphine sulfate equivalent dose (MSE). Results: A total of 60 patients, mean age 61 years, were enrolled in the study, underwent RARP, and completed follow-up questionnaires. None had a history of chronic narcotic use. Intraoperative opiate use was 94.1 mg MSE. There were 73.3% who received immediate postoperative ketorolac. After RARP, the main source of pain/discomfort was abdominal/incisional, followed by urethral catheter-related, penile, and bladder spasm-related discomfort. Abdominal pain was generally moderate for most patients and decreased significantly after about 4 days. Penile and urethral catheter-related discomfort was mild throughout the study period. Opiate analgesic medication use quickly decreased as the subjective pain scores improved. Conclusions: After RARP, most patients experience mild/moderate abdominal discomfort, which improves steadily over several days. There is also a quick decline in the average opiate pain medication use that corresponds to the subjective improvement in pain symptoms. This information is useful for clinicians counseling patients on the pain associated with RARP and can serve as a reference to compare the convalescence associated with the other options for treatment of patients with localized prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To validate the Spanish translation of the Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS) questionnaire. Materials and Methods The OABSS was translated into Spanish (OABSS-S) and back translated. The OABSS-S was self-administered to subjects, following internal IRB and ISPOR Good Practices guidelines. Spanish speaking patients >18 years of age were recruited from primary care clinics. Content validity was achieved by having the first 25 subjects complete the questionnaire in privacy; afterwards they were interviewed and the clarity of each question was discussed with the patient. All subjects recruited, including the first 25, were divided into two groups by the presence of OAB as determined by a previously validated intake question. Subjects completed the OABSS-S in privacy on two occasions within 10 days. Patients were excluded if their symptoms changed between the first and second administration of the questionnaire. Internal consistency was determined with Cronbach's alpha. Test-retest was determined by Spearman's rho. Discriminant validity was assessed between each group using one-way ANOVA and the Tukey post hoc test. Results One hundred and seventeen of 128 enrolled subjects completed this study (mean age 55; SD 18). Of 117, 74 (63%) were women 29 with OAB and 45 without OAB. There were 43 men (37%), 18 with OAB and 25 without OAB. A high level of consistency was observed among the seven items answered at visit 1 and 2, with a Cronbach's raw alpha statistic of 0.92. No differences in OABSS-S with age or gender were noted. However, subgroup analysis showed patients in the OAB group were significantly older and post-test analysis showed they had higher scores both for each individual question as well as overall symptom severity scores. Spearman's rank order correlation coefficients showed that there was significant difference between the seven items of the OABSS-S; a strong association (Spearman's rho) was also observed between the total seven-item score at visits 1 and 2 for the total score of all subjects r = 0.84, with OAB: r = 0.81, and without OAB: r = 0.83. Comparison of average total scores obtained for all patients at visits 1 and 2 was not significant (10.47 ± 6.53 vs. 11.02 ± 0.66). Discriminant validity testing revealed that there were significant differences in the responses between all diagnostic groups at visits 1 and 2: with OAB versus without OAB; total versus with OAB; total versus without OAB. Conclusion The Spanish version of the OABSS is valid and reliable and will allow health care providers to easily and quickly assess a Spanish-speaking patient's symptoms. Neurourol. Urodynam. 31:664-668, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Loss of penile length is a common complaint of men with Peyronie's disease (PD), both before and after corrective intervention, which has a significant negative effect on patient quality of life. We sought to identify and describe the methods by which penile length can be preserved or increased. We conducted an extensive, systematic literature review, based on a search of the PUBMED database for articles published between 1990 and 2015. Articles with the key words "Peyronie's disease", "penile length" and/or "penile lengthening" were reviewed if they contained subjective or objective penile length outcomes. Only English-language articles that were related to PD and penile size were included. We found no evidence in the literature that medical therapy alone increases penile length. Classic inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement, plication procedures, and the Nesbit procedure appear likely to maintain or decrease penile length. Plaque incision (PI) and grafting appears likely to maintain or increase penile length, but is complicated by risk of post-operative erectile dysfunction (ED). There are several surgical procedures performed concomitantly with IPP placement that may be suitable treatment options for men with comorbid ED, and consistently increase penile length with otherwise good outcomes concerning sexual function. These include the subcoronal penile prosthesis (scIPP), Egydio circumferential technique, the sliding technique, the modified sliding technique (MoST), and the multiple slice technique (MuST). In addition, adjuvant therapies such as penile traction therapy (PTT), post-operative inflation protocols, suspensory ligament relaxation, lipectomy, and adjuvant medical therapy for glans engorgement appear to increase subjective and/or objective penile length for men at high risk of decreased penile length after PD surgery. Considering the psychological burden of length loss in men with PD, providers with adequate volume and expertise should attempt, if possible, to maintain or increase penile length for men undergoing surgical intervention. There are several evidence-based, safe, and effective ways to increase penile length for these men and multiple emerging adjuvant therapies that may help ensure adequate length.

Objective: To compare the utilization, perioperative complications and predictors of LCA versus RPN in the treatment of localized renal tumors., Methods: From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample we identified patients undergoing RPN or LCA for the treatment of localized renal tumors from October 2008 through 2010. Patient and hospital-specific factors which predict postoperative complications and use of LCA were investigated., Results: 14,275 patients with localized renal tumors were identified: 70.3% had RPN and 29.7% had LCA. LCA was more common in older patient and at hospitals without robotic consoles. No difference was identified in perioperative complications (0.2% vs. 0.2%), transfusion (5.1% vs. 6.2%), length of stay (2.9 vs. 3.0 days) or median cost ($41,753 vs. $44,618) between the groups, LCA vs. RPN. On multivariate analysis sicker patients were more likely to have LCA (OR 1.34, p=0.048) and sicker patients had greater postoperative complications (OR 3.30, p<0.001); LCA did not predict more complications (OR 1.63, p=0.138) and LCA was performed at hospitals without RCs (OR 0.02, p<0.001). Limitations include observational study design, inability to assess disease severity, operative time, or body mass index, which may affect patient selection and outcomes., Conclusions: More patients had RPN vs. LCA; surgical technique was not predictive of postoperative complications. As technology develops to treat localized renal tumors, it will be important to continue to track outcomes and costs for procedures including RPN and LCA.