Search

Background: Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common complication after radical prostatectomy, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. This study aimed to correlate the length of preserved urethra in robotic radical prostatectomy (RALP) patients with short-term urinary continence rates within 90 days post-surgery., Methods: A prospective multicentric study enrolled 190 prostate adenocarcinoma patients undergoing RALP. Using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), urethral length was measured from the external urethral sphincter to the bladder neck. After surgery, histological measurements of the removed urethra were compared to the preoperative mpMRI data. Patients were categorized into two groups at the three-month follow-up based on urinary continence assessed through Urodynamic Study (UDS): Group A (94 patients without UI) and Group B (96 patients with UI)., Results: Results revealed a significant difference in mean UI recovery time (Group A: 12.35 days, SD: 3.09 vs. Group B: 93.86 days, SD: 34.8, p < 0.0001). A ROC curve identified a 16.5% cut-off value (p < 0.000, sensitivity 87.5%, specificity 91.8%). Both groups showed a significant negative correlation between preserved urethral percentage and UI recovery time (Group A: r -0.655, p < 0.0001; Group B: r -0.340, p: 0.017). Group A had an average of 21.52% preserved urethra, while Group B had 13.86% (p < 0.0001). At one-year follow-up, 93.2% overall patients reported urinary continence without pads., Conclusions: This study emphasizes the positive correlation between preserved urethra percentage in RALP and early urinary continence recovery, highlighting its surgical significance., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: More than 4% of the global greenhouse gas emissions are generated by healthcare system. Focusing on the environmental impact of minimally invasive surgery, we assessed and compared the CO 2 emissions between Robot-assisted (RALP) and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (LRP)., Methods: In patients prospectively enrolled, we evaluated the age, surgical and anesthesiologic time, postoperative intensive care unit and hospital stay, blood transfusion, pre- and postoperative hemoglobin and Gleason score, open conversion need, and complications (Clavien-Dindo classification). We assessed the life cycle to estimate the energy consumption for surgical procedures and hospital stays. We reported the materials, CO 2 produced, and fluid quantity infused and dispersed. Disposable and reusable materials and instruments were weighed and divided into metal, plastic, and composite fibers. The CO 2 consumption for disposal and decontamination was also evaluated., Results: Of the 223 patients investigated, 119 and 104 patients underwent RALP and LRP, respectively. The two groups were comparable as regards age and preoperative Gleason score. The laparoscopic and robotic instruments weighed 1733 g and 1737 g, respectively. The CO 2 emissions due to instrumentation were higher in the laparoscopic group, with the majority coming from plastic and composite fiber components. The CO 2 emissions for metal components were higher in the robotic group. The robot functioned at 3.5 kW/h, producing 4 kg/h of CO 2 . The laparoscopic column operated at 600 W/h, emitting ~1 kg/h of CO 2 . The operating room operated at 3,0 kW/h. The operating time was longer in the laparoscopic group, resulting in higher CO 2 emissions. CO 2 emissions from hospital room energy consumption were lower in the robot-assisted group. The total CO 2 emissions were ~47 kg and ~60 kg per procedure in the robot-assisted and laparoscopic groups, respectively., Conclusions: RALP generates substantially less CO 2 than LRP owing to the use of more reusable surgical supplies, shorter operative time and hospital stay., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Purpose: To evaluate Hugo RAS against the Da Vinci system for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) in prostate cancer treatment., Methods: We compared outcomes of 150 patients with prostate cancer undergoing RARP with either Hugo or Da Vinci systems. Our analysis included operative, postoperative, pathological, and functional outcomes., Results: Both groups had 75 patients. Baseline characteristics and tumor features were similar. Intraoperatively, Da Vinci had a shorter docking time (10.45 vs. 18.62 min, p = 0.02), but total operative times were comparable (145.34 vs 138.95, p = 0.85). Hugo outperformed in neck dissection and lymphadenectomy times (22 vs 13.67 min, p = 0.027 and 37.82 vs 45.77 min, p = 0.025). Postoperative metrics like stay duration, catheter time, and complications showed no significant difference. Functional results, using IPSS and IIEF5, were similar between systems. Six Da Vinci patients (8%) and nine Hugo patients (12%) experienced social incontinence (p = 0.072). Pathological outcomes like T stage, Gleason Score, and nodes removed were alike. However, Hugo had more positive surgical margins (20% vs. 10.67%, p = 0.034)., Conclusions: RARP outcomes using Hugo RAS were similar to the Da Vinci system in our study. More research and extended follow-up are required to ascertain long-term oncological and functional results., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: To compare intra and perioperative parameters between HoLEP and ThuLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of the two procedures with a 12-month follow-up., Methods: A prospective randomized study was performed on 236 consecutive patients who underwent ThuLEP (n = 115), or HoLEP (n = 121) in three different centers. Intra and perioperative parameters were analyzed: operative time, enucleated tissue weight, irrigation volume, blood loss, catheterization time, hospital stay and complications. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively with the international prostate symptom score (IPSS), the quality of life (QoL) score, post-void residual volume (PVR), PSA and maximum flow rate (Q max )., Results: Preoperative variables in each study arm did not show any significant difference. Compared to HoLEP, ThuLEP showed similar operative time (63.69 vs 71.66 min, p = 0.245), enucleated tissue weight (48.84 vs 51.13 g, p = 0.321), catheterization time (1.9 vs 2.0 days, p = 0.450) and hospital stay (2.2 vs 2.8 days, p = 0.216), but resulted in less haemoglobin decrease (0.45 vs 2.77 g/dL, p = 0.005). HoLEP presented a significantly higher number of patients with postoperative acute urinary retention and stress incontinence. No significant differences were found in PSA, Q max , PVR, IPSS and QoL score during follow-up., Conclusion: ThuLEP and HoLEP both relieved lower urinary tract symptoms equally, with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP detemined reduced blood loss and early postoperative complications. Catheterization time, enucleated tissue, hospital stay, operative time and follow-up parameters did not show any significant difference., (© 2020. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: To assess the effects of a new ejaculation-sparing thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ES-ThuLEP) technique on sexual functions and micturition, in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to evaluate how the surgical technique of ES-ThuLEP can lead to ejaculation preservation., Methods: A prospective study was carried out between January 2015 and January 2018 on patients with surgical indication for BPH, who wished to preserve ejaculation. The patients were treated with ES-ThuLEP and were evaluated before and 3 and 6 months after surgery. Three validated questionnaires (ICIQ-MLUTSsex, IIEF-5 and IPSS) were used to assess changes in ejaculation, erectile function and urinary symptoms. Uroflowmetry (Qmax and Qavg), post-void residual volume and voided volume were also evaluated, to assess micturition improvement. Patients with moderate to severe erectile dysfunction were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed with the Student's t test, Chi-square test and logistic regression analysis., Results: Two hundred and eighty three patients were enrolled. Ejaculation was spared in 203 and 219 patients at 3 and 6 months after surgery. No significant differences were observed between erectile function before and after surgery: baseline IIEF-5 = 16.2 ± 4.47 vs 16.7 ± 2.9 (p = 0.419) and 17.7 ± 3.2 (p = 0.410) at 3 and 6 months. Significant improvement in urinary symptoms was achieved: baseline IPSS = 19.4 ± 7.24 vs 5.8 ± 4.3 (p = 0.032) and 3.9 ± 4.1 (p = 0.029) at 3 and 6 months., Conclusion: ES-ThuLEP effectively preserved ejaculation in over two thirds of the patients without compromising micturition improvement or erectile function. ES-ThuLEP could be a valid treatment option for BPH in young and sexually active men.

Background: To compare clinical intra and early postoperative outcomes between conventional Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate using the Virtual Basket tool (VB-HoLEP) to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)., Methods: This prospective randomized study enrolled consecutive patients with BPH, who were assigned to undergo either HoLEP (n = 100), or VB-HoLEP (n = 100). All patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively, with particular attention to catheterization time, operative time, blood loss, irrigation volume and hospital stay. We also evaluated the patients at 3 and 6 months after surgery and assessed maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Quality of Life score (QOLS)., Results: No significant differences in preoperative parameters between patients in each study arm were found. Compared to HoLEP, VB-HoLEP resulted in less hemoglobin decrease (2.54 vs. 1.12 g/dl, P = 0.03) and reduced operative time (57.33 ± 29.71 vs. 42.99 ± 18.51 min, P = 0.04). HoLEP and VB-HoLEP detrmined similar catheterization time (2.2 vs. 1.9 days, P = 0.45), irrigation volume (33.3 vs. 31.7 l, P = 0.69), and hospital stay (2.8 vs. 2.7 days, P = 0.21). During the 6-month follow-up no significant differences in IPSS, Qmax, PVR, and QOLS were demonstrated., Conclusions: HoLEP and VB-HoLEP are both efficient and safe procedures for relieving lower urinary tract symptoms. VB-HoLEP was statistically superior to HoLEP in blood loss and operative time. However, procedures did not differ significantly in catheterization time, hospital stay, and irrigation volume. No significant differences were demonstrated in QOLS, IPSS, Qmax and PVR throughout the 6-month follow-up., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72879639; date of registration: June 25th, 2015. Retrospectively registred.

Aims: To assess efficacy and safety as well as predictive factors of dry rate and freedom from surgical revision in patients underwent AUS placement. The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is still considered the standard for the treatment of moderate to severe post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence (SUI). However, data reporting efficacy and safety from large series are lacking., Methods: A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted in 16 centers in Europe and USA. Only primary cases of AUS implantation in non-neurogenic SUI after prostate surgery, with a follow-up of at least 1 year were included. Efficacy data (continence rate, based on pad usage) and safety data (revision rate in case of infection and erosion, as well as atrophy or mechanical failure) were collected. Multivariable analyses were performed in order to investigate possible predictors of the aforementioned outcomes., Results: Eight hundred ninety-two men had primary AUS implantation. At 32 months mean follow-up overall dry rate and surgical revision were 58% and 30.7%, respectively. Logistic regression analysis showed that patients without previous incontinence surgery had a higher probability to be dry after AUS implantation (OR: 0.51, P = 0.03). Moreover institutional case-load was positively associated with dry rate (OR: 1.18; P = 0.005) and freedom from revision (OR: 1.51; P = 0.00)., Conclusions: The results of this study showed that AUS is an effective option for the treatment of SUI after prostate surgery. Moreover previous incontinence surgery and low institutional case-load are negatively associated to efficacy and safety outcomes., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: It is not unusual to encounter the clinical scenario of a male patient undergoing endoscopic treatment for bladder cancer (TURBT) who also needs transurethral resection of prostate (TURP). The aims of this meta-analysis were to understand whether it is oncologically safe or advantageous to combine the two procedures in terms of subsequent overall recurrences with particular interest to that in the prostatic fossa and to understand whether some characteristics of the bladder tumors can influence the recurrence rate., Methods: A bibliographic search covering the period from January 1950 to December 2011 was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Meta-analysis approach was applied comparing prostatic fossa recurrences and total recurrences in simultaneous TURBT and TURP and control. Also, prostatic fossa recurrences and tumors' grading and multifocality in patients treated with simultaneous TURBT and TURP were analyzed. To investigate to what extent observational time influenced relapses/recurrence, a random effect meta-regression logistic model-based approach was applied. All statistical evaluations were performed using SAS version 9.2 and by RevMan 5.0. An α level of 0.05 was considered as statistically significant., Results: Overall, there were 1,234 participants in the eight studies considered. The study group consists of 634 patients and the control group 600. Mean age was 67.88 and 61.64 years, respectively, in the study and control groups. In the study group, on a total of 634 patients, 65 recurrences in the prostatic fossa appear. In the control group, on a total of 600 patients, 58 recurrences in the prostatic fossa occurred. Data do not show a statistically significant difference in recurrence in the prostatic fossa between patients treated simultaneously with TURB and TURP and the control group. Meta-analysis does not show a statistically significant difference in recurrence in the prostatic fossa with the increased grading of the neoplasms. But there is a statistically significant increased recurrence in patients with multifocal tumors. There is a statistically significant reduction in recurrence between patients treated simultaneously with TURB and TURP and the control group, but there is no reduction in the recurrence rate in the time., Conclusions: This meta-analysis emphasized that the two operations could be performed during the same session without any negative oncologic results. The resolution during the same session of bladder outlet obstruction will improve the patients' quality of life and performing the procedures in the same session sparing the patients from a further anesthesiological maneuvers and the need for a further hospitalization for the surgical resolution of the prostatic obstruction.

Introduction: Radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) with full bladder cuff excision is the gold standard for treatment of non-metastatic upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC). We describe our technique of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) with bladder cuff excision technique with modified port placement, reporting our long-term follow-up outcomes. Methods: Patients affected by UTUC were prospectively enrolled and undergone to LNU. Perioperative outcomes, oncological data at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months after surgery, and all the surgical complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification were evaluated in all subjects. Results: A total of 50 patients with UTUC underwent LNU, using this new technique without patient and port repositioning. The mean operative time was 168 minutes, estimated blood loss was 75 mL, mean length of hospital stay was 3 days. There were no intraoperative complications while four late complications occurred (two grade IIIb and two grade II according to Clavien-Dindo classification, incisional hernias and fever, respectively). Postoperative pathology was T1 in 12 patients, T2 in 17 patients, and T3 in 21 patients. Tumor grade was low in 12 patients and high in 38 patients. Conclusions: In our study the described LNU technique was related to a significant reduction in terms of operative time and length of hospital stay, with a faster patients' recovery and no peri and postoperative complications. The long-term oncological outcomes were similar to data reported in literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) techniques for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) have become increasingly popular among urologists over the past 23 years. Despite the energy source employed, the aim of all these procedures is to endoscopically remove the prostatic lobes by enucleating them from the prostate surgical capsule. The reasons for which EEP has gained popularity among urologists are the reduction in complications and hospital stay compared to endoscopic gold standard Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP), but especially the possibility to treat large prostates, allowing to abandon open simple prostatectomy (OP) and to avoid the burden related to open surgery. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) sets the basic principles of all EEP techniques in 1998 and has become the treatment of reference for BPH. Since then, various lasers have been developed and applied to prostatic enucleation. The thulium laser has a slightly shorter wavelength compared to the holmium laser and a continuous wave output, which increase vaporization and reduce penetration depth. These features make it ideal for prostatic enucleation. A vapoenucleating technique called Thulium Laser Vapoenucleation of the Prostate was presented in 2009, followed by a blunt enucleating technique called Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate in 2010. These techniques have become alternatives to HoLEP and TURP; however, the amount of literature and randomized controlled trials available are inferior compared to HoLEP. The aim of this review is to outline, describe, and discuss current evidence on thulium enucleating techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate prostate cancer (PC) detection rate, employing endorectal multiparametric 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) driving subsequent cognitive systematic prostatic biopsy (CSPB) versus a homogenous group of patients who did not undergo endorectal MRI. Materials and methods: A series of patients with a first negative biopsy were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group A: patients underwent MRI and subsequent CSPB; Group B: patients that did not undergo MRI. Each patient underwent a 13-core sampling. Patients from Group A had four cores more for each MRI suspected lesion. The cancer detection rate was calculated for each group with regard to possible matches or mismatches between MRI evidence and pathological reports. Results: Two hundred consecutive patients were investigated. Fifty out of 200 (25 %) patients had a diagnosis of PC, 24 in Group A and 26 in Group B. In Group A, 67 patients (67 %) were positive for suspected lesions at the MRI. The mismatch between MRI findings and the CSPB outcome was 61 % with an MRI-driven detection rate of 15 %. Group B detection rate was 26 % with no significant differences versus Group A ( P = NS). Patient discomfort was higher in Group A (82 %). The accuracy of CSPB was 41 % with a positive predictive value of 22.3 %. This rate is lower in high-grade cancers (11.9 %). The cost-effectiveness was higher in Group A. Conclusions: Prostate cancer detection rate does not improve by CSPB. The accuracy of CSPB was lower in high-grade PC, and a higher cost was found with CSPB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]