Search

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:The morbidity related to artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in women is usually considered as the drawback which has limited its widespread. In order to decr...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:Several preliminary series have reported the use of a robotic approach for artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in female patients with stress urinary incontin...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:The main drawback of the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in women is the technical complexity of its implantation. Over the past five years, several teams have reporte...

Background Widespread adoption of the AMS-800 artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in female patients has been hampered by the surgical morbidity of its implantation through an open approach. Objective To describe a standardized technique of robotic bladder neck AUS implantation in female patients, and to report the perioperative and functional outcomes obtained by multiple surgeons with this technique. Design, settings, and participants We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all female patients who underwent robotic AUS implantation for urinary incontinence due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency between March 2012 and March 2017 in five institutions. Most of the 10 surgeons involved were not highly experienced in female AUS implantation and/or in robotic surgery. Surgical procedure The AUS is implanted at the bladder neck through a transperitoneal robotic approach. The finger placed by the assistant surgeon in the vagina is paramount to expose the vesicovaginal space and guide the robotic surgeon throughout the bladder neck dissection. Measurements The primary endpoint was the incontinence categorized as complete continence(ie, no pads used), improved incontinence, or unchanged incontinence. Results and limitations Forty-nine female patients underwent a robotic AUS implantation. There were eight intraoperative complications (16.3%): five bladder neck injuries and three vaginal injuries. Nine patients experienced postoperative complications (18.3%), but only two were Clavien ≥3 (4.1%). After a median follow-up of 18.5 mo, one explantation (vaginal erosion, 2.1%) and three revisions (one mechanical and two nonmechanical failure, 6.1%) were needed. At last follow-up, 40 patients were fully continent (81.6%), six had improved incontinence (12.2%), and three had unchanged incontinence (6.1%). Conclusions In this first multicenter series of robot-assisted AUS implantation, our technique appeared feasible, safe, and reproducible with perioperative and functional outcomes in the early learning curve not inferior to those reported in large series of open AUS implantation from tertiary referral centers. Patient summary Robot-assisted bladder neck AMS-800 artificial urinary sphincter implantation in female patients with stress urinary incontinence resulting from intrinsic sphincter deficiency is feasible, safe, and reproducible with promising outcomes.

To evaluate and compare scar-related satisfaction in patients treated with open (ORP) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). We prospectively included all patients treated with ORP and LRP in our department between March and June 2010. Scar-related outcomes were collected at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Three months after surgery, all patients filled up a questionnaire concerning their scar-related symptoms, scar self-consciousness and satisfaction. These variables were statistically compared between the two groups. A total of 101 patients were included for analysis. Of them, 48, 49 and 4 were treated with LRP, ORP and LRP converted to ORP, respectively. Age distribution was not statistically different between groups. Postoperatively, 5 patients experienced skin infection on their scar site, 2 in the ORP and 3 in the LRP group. The most frequently reported symptom was scar itching, that was more frequent after LRP, although difference was not significant (33 vs. 19 %, p = 0.2). According to patient scar-related consciousness, satisfaction and impact on quality of life, no differences were reported between groups. Impact on quality of life was insignificant in 27 (55 %) versus 21 (44 %) patients after ORP and LRP, respectively (p = 0.3). With an overall low impact on satisfaction and quality of life, scars gendered by LRP and ORP were not different from patients’ point of view. In patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, the cosmetic aspect of scars does not seem to be a concern.

To determine the accuracy of a 12-core biopsy protocol in assessing the location of prostate tumors within radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens.A consecutive series of patients with T1c stage prostate cancer who had undergone 12 ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies prior to RP was considered. The locations of the biopsies from prostate gland mapping were compared with the locations of tumor tissues obtained after analysis of the prostate specimens.Overall, 78 patients (27.4%) were included. The median PSA level was 6 ng/mL. The median prostate weight was 45 g (range 22 to 102). Overall, 936 biopsies were performed in the 78 men, of which 254 biopsies were positive. The mean number of positive biopsies per patient was 3.7 (range 1 to 12). Pathologic examination of the surgical specimens revealed that 58 (74.4%) patients had pT2 disease and 20 patients (25.6%) had locally advanced disease (pT3). The biopsy protocol's sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value for tumor location were 0.34, 0.83 and 0.84. The performance of the protocol was modest in assessing the exact tumor location (area under curve (AUC) 0.581, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.489-0.719).Routine, ultrasound-guided, systematic 12-core biopsies lack precision in prostate tumor mapping.