ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of death worldwide and may present as metastatic disease involving the liver, lungs and bones, and pelvic organs. Penile and scrotal metastasis may occur secondary to primary tumors originating from the genito-urinary tract. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case of rectal adenocarcinoma metastatic to the penis and scrotum s/p chemotherapy and radiotherapy. His metastatic involvement was complicated by infections, necrosis and growth of maggots. Patient underwent wide excision and debridement of the metastatic deposits in the pubic, penile, scrotal and perineal region in addition to split-tissue skin graft from the right anterior thigh to cover the pubic region, the remainder of the penile shaft, and the scrotum. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: Peno-scrotal metastasis secondary to rectal adenocarcinoma is a rare condition. It may present as malignant priapism, hematuria, obstructive urinary symptoms occurring when there is urethral involvement. The mechanism of metastasis may be due to retrograde venous flow from the vesical, pudendal, hemorrhoidal plexuses, and the prostatic venous plexus draining the cavernosal veins of the penis. Additionally, lymphatic involvement and spread may play an important role in the spread of the disease. Treatment of such conditions relies on chemotherapy and radiotherapy and surgery for local control and symptomatic treatment. CONCLUSION: This article describes the rare occurrence of peno-scrotal metastasis of rectal adenocarcinoma and provides an overview on diagnosis, etiology, and management of the disease.
ABSTRACT
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.