Comparison of Transabdominal and Transrectal Ultrasound for Sizing of the Prostate.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of prostate sizing between pelvic abdominal (PUS) and transrectal (TRUS) ultrasound in a large, diverse cohort of men at our institution. Prostate volume plays a vital role in all types of prostate disease. American Urological Association guidelines (2018) for surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia now include consideration of prostate volume measurement prior to surgical intervention. Ultrasound is a quick and radiation-free imaging modality. METHODS: We performed a single-center, retrospective study of 299 patients with prostate sizing between January 1, 2012 and August 31, 2017. Prostate volume was derived from ellipsoid volume calculation using dimensions measured on ultrasound. PUS and TRUS were compared by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient, and agreement between modalities assessed using the Bland Altman analysis. This analysis was done for the whole sample population as well as for specific groupings according to body mass index, prostate size, and time between exams. RESULTS: A total of 236 patients had PUS followed by TRUS and met study inclusion criteria. Median age was 63, median prostate specific antigen value prior to PUS was 7.6 ng/mL, and only 20% were white. Mean volume differences between the two modalities for the data (volPUS - volTRUS) were (-0.3 ± 1.1) cm3. Bland-Altman analysis showed agreement between PUS and TRUS only for prostates ≤ 30 cm3. CONCLUSION: For prostates less than 30 cc, we found that PUS is interchangeable with TRUS in estimating prostate volume. However, for larger prostates where size may alter surgical management, we would recommend TRUS or cross-sectional imaging.

Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty surgical simulation using a 3D-printed silicone-based model: development, face validation and crowdsourced learning outcomes assessment.

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is an uncommonly encountered pathology, posing a challenge for resident training. We describe the development and face validation of a robotic pyeloplasty simulation using a 3D-printed silicone-based model of UPJO for surgical training, in combination with crowdsourced scoring to objectively assess performance and learning outcomes. The organs were created using 3D modeling software and printed using a silicone-based material by Lazarus 3D, LLC. They were secured in a laparoscopic box trainer and the robotic system was docked. Eight residents and three faculty each performed two robotic-assisted right dismembered pyeloplasties on separate occaisions. Face validity was evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale. Crowd-Sourced Assessment of Technical Skills (C-SATS Inc.) scored surgical performance using the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) criteria, based on video review of each simulation. All participants completed the simulation twice with fully patent anastomoses. Average time to complete the first and second trials was 44.4 min and 43.2 min, respectively. The average GEARS score was 17.1 and 17.6 for the first and second trials respectively. Participants improved on average in all 5 GEARS categories, with significant improvement in depth perception (p = 0.006). The model received mean scores (out of 5) of 4.36 for aesthetics, 4.18 for overall feel, 3.55 for realism, 4.72 for usability, and 4.72 for suturability. Residents had a significant increase in confidence between initial and final surveys on a 5-point Likert Scale: 1.63 vs. 2.38 (p = 0.03). Using 3D-printed silicone-based models, participants completed robotic-assisted dismembered pyeloplasties for training and skill acquisition. We demonstrated face validity of the simulation, which was also found to improve participant speed and significantly improve resident confidence. Crowdsourced assessment demonstrated significant improvement in depth perception.

Overall Survival in Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer in the US Veterans Health Administration: Is PIVOT Generalizable?

UNLABELLED: A better understanding of overall survival among patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is critical to inform PCa treatment decisions, especially in light of data from the Prostate Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT). We sought to describe patterns of survival for all patients with clinically localized PCa treated by the VHA. We created an analytic cohort of 35 954 patients with clinically localized PCa diagnosed from 1995 to 2001, approximating the PIVOT inclusion criteria (age of diagnosis ≤75 yr and clinical stage T2 or lower). Mean patient age was 65.9 yr, and median follow-up was 161 mo. Overall, 22.5% of patients were treated with surgery, 16.6% were treated with radiotherapy, and 23.1% were treated with androgen deprivation. Median survival of the entire cohort was 14 yr (25th, 75th percentiles, range: 7.9-20 yr). Among patients who received treatment with curative intent, median survival was 17.9 yr following surgery and 12.9 yr following radiotherapy. One-third of patients died within 10 yr of diagnosis compared with nearly half of the participants in PIVOT. This finding sounds a note of caution when generalizing the mortality data from PIVOT to VHA patients and those in the community. PATIENT SUMMARY: More than one-third of patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer treated through the US Veterans Health Administration from 1995 to 2001 died within 10 yr of their diagnosis. Caution should be used when generalizing the estimates of competing mortality data from PIVOT.

Shock wave lithotripsy associated with greater prevalence of hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) increases the prevalence of hypertension (HTN) at intermediate follow-up. METHODS: All patients were treated with the Medstone STS electrohydraulic lithotripter, and the data were recorded prospectively in a centralized database. The data on the development of HTN after SWL was obtained from a questionnaire mailed to the patients who had undergone SWL from November 1999 and January 2002. Controls matched for age, sex, and body mass index were obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, using the demographic, body measurements, medical conditions, and blood pressure data sets. Two sets of matching controls were used to compare the prevalence of HTN between our patients and the NHANES population at SWL and at the follow-up point. RESULTS: A total of 2041 patients responded to the questionnaire, with a median follow-up of 6 years. No statistically significant difference was found in the HTN prevalence between the patients and matched controls at SWL (26.7% vs 28.0%). At the follow-up point, the prevalence of HTN was greater in our patients (37.8%) than in the controls (32.5%, P=.0009). Of our patients, 15% have developed de novo HTN compared with the predicted rate of 6.25% from the matched controls. Male gender, age, and a greater body mass index were associated with the development of HTN, but none of the SWL parameters (number of shocks, bilateral vs unilateral, and multiple SWL sessions) were significantly associated with HTN. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study have indicated a small, but significant, increase in the risk of developing HTN after SWL using a third-generation electrohydraulic lithotripter at intermediate follow-up.