Search

Purpose: We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes, post-operative complications, and opioid use between AirSeal® and non-AirSeal® robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Methods: We retrospectively collected data on 326 patients who underwent elective RARP at our institution either with or without AirSeal®. The first 60 cases were excluded accounting for the institutions' learning curve of RARP. Patient demographics, oncologic, pathologic, and surgical characteristics between AirSeal® and non-AirSeal® cases were compared. Furthermore, outcomes of interest including operative time, length of stay, morbidity, and opioid use for pain management were compared between the two groups. Univariate linear and logistic regression models were developed. Results: The AirSeal® group consisted of 125 (38.3%) patients while the non-AirSeal® group consisted of 201 (61.7%) patients. No statistically significant difference was seen in terms of patient demographics, oncologic characteristics, surgical characteristics, and pathologic characteristics between the two groups. In addition, univariate linear regression showed that RARP with AirSeal® displayed shorter operative times by 12.3 min and a shorter length of hospital stay by 0.5 days compared to the non-AirSeal® group (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the AirSeal® group witnessed lower odds of Clavien-Dindo (CVD) Class > 2 complications (OR = 0.102) and a lower need for opioid use (OR = 0.49) compared to the non-AirSeal® group (p < 0.022). Conclusion: RARP using AirSeal® is associated with shorter operative times, shorter length of hospital stays, lower odds of CVD > 2 complications, and lower odds of opioid use with respect to non-AirSeal® RARP. The efficacy and cost effectiveness of using the AirSeal® system during RARP should be further studied and evaluated by clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Post-operative pulmonary failure is a major complication of nephrectomy that may lead to severe morbidity and mortality. Hence, we aimed to derive a nephrectomy-specific post-operative respiratory failure index. Methods: Our cohort was derived from The American College of Surgeons—National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database between 2005 and 2019. The outcome of interest was post-operative respiratory failure (PRF) defined as any incidence of unplanned intubation post-operatively or requiring mechanical ventilation post-operatively for a period > 48 h. A multivariable logistic regression model was constructed, and model calibration and performance were assessed using a ROC analysis and the Hosmer–Lemeshow test. Finally, we derived the nephrectomy-specific respiratory failure (NSRF) index and compared it to Gupta's index. Results: Seventy-nine thousand five hundred and twenty-three patients underwent nephrectomy between the years 2005 and 2019 of which nine hundred and sixty-two patients developed PRF. The final NSRF model encompassed ten variables: age, smoking status, American society of anesthesiology class, abnormal creatinine (≥ 1.5 mg/dL), anemia (< 36%), functional health status, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, surgical approach, emergency case, and obesity (≥ 40 kg/m2). The NSRF ROC analysis provided C-statistic = 0.78, calibration R2 = 0.99, and proper goodness of fit. In comparison, the C-statistics of Gupta's index was found to be 0.71 (p value < 0.001). Conclusion: The NSRF is a procedure tailored index for predicting post-operative respiratory failure. It is a valuable tool in the pre-operative evaluation setting that can help identify high-risk patients who will require additional respiratory evaluation and preparation for their surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Prostate cancer patients tend to be older with multiple comorbidities and are thus at increased risk for postoperative cardiovascular events after radical prostatectomy (RP). Thus, proper patient selection strategies are essential to decide for or against a surgical approach. We aimed to derive a prostatectomy specific index (PSI) for patients undergoing RP and compare its performance to universally used indices. Methods: The cohort was derived from National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database between 2005 and 2012. The primary outcome was incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days post-surgery including: death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. A multivariable logistic regression model was constructed, performance and calibration were evaluated using a ROC analysis and the Hosmer–Lemeshow test, the PSI index was derived and compared to the RCRI and AUB-HAS2 indices. Results: A total of 17,299 patients were included in our cohort, with a mean age of 62 ± 7.4 years. Seventy three patients had a cardiac event post RP. The final PSI index encompassed six variables: history of heart disease, age, anemia, American society of anesthesiology class, surgical approach, and hypertension. The PSI ROC analysis provided C-statistic = 0.72, calibration R2 = 0.99 and proper goodness of fit. In comparison, the C-statistics of RCRI and AUB-HAS2 were found to be 0.57 and 0.65, respectively (p value < 0.001). Conclusion: The PSI model is a procedure tailored index for prediction of major cardiovascular events post RP. It was calibrated using a large national database aiming to optimize treatment selection strategies for prostate cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of telementoring for aquablation by comparing the outcomes of onsite versus telemetry proctoring. Methods: The telemetry device of choice was Proximie, an innovative digital platform that uses live video stream with an augmented reality technology. Our study retrospectively reviewed outcomes from our IRB approved prospective Aquablation database from March 2018 till October 2019. Procedures were guided by a proctor either onsite or remotely through telemetry. One-way ANOVA or Chi-square was used to compare perioperative parameters and mixed model ANOVA was used to compare functional outcomes. Results: Our data included 59 patients who underwent a proctored-based Aquablation of which 21 were telementor guided and 38 were onsite guided. The initial ten procedures were done with the latter approach. There was no statistical difference in age, comorbidities, prostate size, and baseline serum markers amongst the two groups. In contrast, telementor guidance was associated with increased general anaesthesia use (76.2% vs. 21.1%) and haemostatic cauterization (81.0% versus 47.4%) with a p value < 0.00001 and 0.004 respectively. However, the main procedure outcomes: operative time, time to Foley catheter removal, haemoglobin drop, urinary retention, and adverse events were statistically insignificant (p value > 0.05). Conclusion: Following an initial phase of onsite proctoring, telementoring can be safely used in the adoption phase of a new robotic technology. This approach allowed more flexibility in patient scheduling and reduced travel costs with similar surgical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]