Search

Objectives: To evaluate the outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared to those of open (ORP) and laparoscopic (LRP) surgery. The interest lies fundamentally in the quality-of-life (QoL) evaluation, postoperative recovery, and personal satisfaction of patients with the intervention (PS) beyond oncological and functional outcomes., Methods: Six hundred eighty-five RPs were performed in our center between 2011-2018 (17,8% ORP, 22,2% LRP and 60% RARP). Patients were prospectively assessed through follow-up until April 2020 and a multiple questionnaire at 12-months post-RP that included ICIQ-SF, SHIM, IPSS, IQL and questions about pain, postoperative recovery and PS. Also baseline and postoperative patient- and treatment-related data were collected, and binomial logistic regressions were performed for the 1 vs.1 comparisons (ORP vs. RARP and LRP vs. RARP)., Results: RARP patients have overall fewer comorbidities, less tumor aggressiveness, more operative time requirements and more positive surgical margins than ORP and LRP patients. Nevertheless, RARP outperforms ORP in: hospital stay (days) (OR 0,86; 95% CI: 0,80-0,94), hemoglobin loss (OR 0,38; 95% CI: 0,30-0,47), transfusion rate (OR 0,18; 95% CI: 0,09-0,34), early complications (p = 0,001), IQL (OR 0,82; 95% CI: 0,69-0,98), erectile function (OR 0,41; 95% CI: 0,21-0,79), pain control (OR 0,82; 95% CI: 0,75-0,89), postoperative recovery (p < 0,001) and choice of a different approach (OR 5,55; 95% CI: 3,14-9,80). RARP is superior to LRP in: urinary continence (OR 0,55; 95% CI: 0,37-0,82), IPSS (OR 0,96; 95% CI: 0,93-0,98), IQL (OR 0,76; 95% CI: 0,66-0,88), erectile function (OR 0,52; 95% CI: 0,29-0,93), postoperative recovery (p = 0,02 and 0,004), PS (p = 0,005; 0,002; and 0,03) and choice of a different approach (OR 7,79; 95% CI: 4,63-13,13)., Conclusions: The findings of our study globally endorse a positive effectiveness of RARP over ORP and/or LRP, both on functional issues, postoperative recovery, QoL and PS. Oncologic results should still be improved., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U.)

Aims: To identify the definition for urinary continence (UC) after radical prostatectomy (RP) which reflects best patients' perception of quality of life (QoL)., Methods: Continence was prospectively assessed in 634 patients, 12 months after RP using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short-Form (ICIQ-SF) and the number of pads employed in a 24-hour period (pad usage). We used the one-way ANOVA technique with posthoc pairwise comparisons according to Scheffé's method (homogeneous subsets) for assessing the degree of QoL deficit related to urinary incontinence (UI)., Results: The continence prevalence is 64.4%, 74.1%, 88.3%, and 35.8% using "0 pads," "1 safety pad," "1 pad," and "ICIQ score 0" definitions, respectively. Pad usage is moderately strongly associated with ICIQ 1, 2, and 3 (ρ = 0.744, 0.677, and 0.711, respectively; p < 0.001). Concordance between classical UC definitions is acceptable between "0 pads-ICIQ score 0" (K = 0.466), but poor for "1 safety pad" and "1 pad" (K = 0.326 and 0.137, respectively). Patients with "0 pad usage" have better QoL related to urine leakage than patients with "1 safety pad" or "1 pad" (1.41 vs. 2.44 and 3.11, respectively; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences found regarding QoL between patients with ICIQ score 0 and ICIQ score 2 (1.01 vs. 1.63; p = 0.63)., Conclusions: Pad usage and the ICIQ-SF's answers provide useful information. We propose a combined definition (0 pads and ICIQ score ≤2) as it is the definition with the least impact on daily QoL., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: With the advanced laparoscopic and robotic surgery, thromboembolic prophylaxis in urologic procedures has traditionally been based on the experience of other surgical specialties. This paper aims to analyze the current recommendations, through a detailed study of the European clinical guidelines and bibliography, applying the recommendations of thromboprophylaxis to the daily urological practice., Objectives: To elaborate general recommendations to surgical patients in Urology, avoiding the risk of perioperative thromboembolic events. Optimize medication in chronic patients and accurately classify who are eligible for bridge therapy., Material and Methods: A review of the available literature and the European clinical guidelines was carried out. We analyzed the most recent consensus articles by studying the available bibliography, trials and reviews on which the European guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in urology are based., Results: Thromboembolic prophylaxis should be targeted towards surgeries that require abdominal approaches, prolonged bed rest or oncological pathologies. Bridge therapies with low molecular weight heparins should be limited. Patients undergoing treatment for chronic conditions can benefit from bridge therapies in specific cases., Conclusions: According to the current guidelines, there might be an overuse of heparins in the daily clinical practice. The development of -direct oral- anticoagulants have shown to reduce the time to reintroduction of medication for chronic conditions as well as a more effective bleeding management., (Copyright © 2019 AEU. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Uretero-pelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction has been classically treated by open dismembered pyeloplasty. Recently, laparoscopic (LP) and robotic pyeloplasty (RP) have become the techniques of choice for the treatment of UPJ stenosis in adult and pediatric population. Our objective in this paper is to review the results of minimally invasive surgery as the treatment of UPJ obstruction, the trend to use these approaches and the current limits of LP and RP., Methods: A review of most relevant papers and meta-analysis about LP and RP in pediatric and adult population was performed using PubMed., Results: In pediatric population, comparative studies and meta-analysis of relevant series show an overlap of results between LP, RP and open surgery in terms of success rate, rate of complications and hospital stay, being operating time shorter in open pyeloplasty compared to minimally invasive techniques. In infants and pre-school age open surgery remains as technique of choice for pediatric surgeons. In adults, comparative studies and meta-analysis of the most relevant series show also an overlap of results in terms of success rate and complication rate between LP and RP. Nonetheless, minimally invasive techniques seem to offer a significant shortening of hospital stay and need for analgesics compared to open surgery, reason why laparoscopic techniques are recommended over open pyeloplasty in adult population., Conclusions: In view of published literature, minimally invasive surgery has been postulated as the standard treatment in UPJ stenosis, with superimposable results to open surgery. The high cost of robotic approach limits its use in this type of pathology.