Clinical and microbiological determinants of infection after transrectal prostate biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of infections following transrectal prostate biopsy (TPB) at our hospital led us to investigate clinical and bacterial risk factors to determine if the colonizing rectal Escherichia coli population is the source. METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study of men undergoing TPB (1 January 2010-6 February 2014) at the San Diego Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The primary outcome was clinically significant post-TPB infection. Rectal swabs were collected immediately before the biopsy and cultured selectively for fluoroquinolone-resistant gram-negative bacilli. Fluoroquinolone-resistant clinical and rectal E. coli isolates were compared using phylotyping, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) analysis, sequence typing, and virulence gene profiling. RESULTS: Rectal colonization with fluoroquinolone-resistant organisms (98% E. coli) was detected in 121 of 764 subjects (15.8%). Post-TPB infection was more common among fluoroquinolone-resistant-colonized subjects than noncolonized subjects (13/121 [10.7%] vs 8/649 [1.2%]; P < .001). Presence of fluoroquinolone-resistant colonizing E. coli was the most significant host characteristic associated with post-TPB infection (odds ratio, 4.5 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-18.2]; P = .03). Escherichia coli infection isolates (n = 18) did not differ from E. coli rectal culture isolates (n = 68) for any of 49 virulence genes or ST131 status (all P > .05). The rectal and clinical isolates of all 9 men with paired isolates had indistinguishable PFGE patterns and identical antimicrobial susceptibility profiles. CONCLUSIONS: The rectal colonizing E. coli population is the source for most fluoroquinolone-resistant post-TPB infections, regardless of clonal background or virulence traits. Screening cultures can identify nearly all patients at risk for fluoroquinolone-resistant post-TPB infection.

Comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) and multiport laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for clinical T1b and T2a renal masses.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and multiport laparoscopic (MPL) radical nephrectomy (RN) for clinical T1b/T2a renal masses, as concerns continue regarding suitability and benefit of LESS for larger renal masses. METHODS: Retrospective single-surgeon comparison of LESS- and MPL-RN between 7/2005 and 11/2014. Sixty-three patients underwent LESS-RN (44 cT1b/19 cT2a); 133 underwent MPL (83 cT1b/50 cT2a). All patients were managed with a standardized care pathway. Primary outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, discharge pain score (visual analog pain, VAP), narcotic requirement (morphine equivalents, MSO4eq). RESULTS: 130/133 MPL and 62/63 LESS were successfully performed. For MPL and LESS groups: mean tumor diameter (cm) for cT1b was 5.3 vs. 5.4 (P=0.689); and for cT2a was 8.2 vs. 8.3 (P=0.728); mean OR time (min) was 126.3 vs. 132.7 (P=0.314); mean EBL (mL) was 139.5 vs.127.8 (P=0.49). No significant differences in complications were noted (P=0.781). LESS was associated with significant reductions in LOS (2.14 vs. 2.45 days, P=0.043), discharge VAP (1.3 vs. 2.2, P<0.001), and narcotic use (5.9 vs. 10.7 MSO4eq, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LESS is comparable to MPL-RN for cT1b and T2a renal tumors in terms of perioperative parameters and may confer benefit with respect to LOS and analgesic requirement.

Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy: An Overview.

Despite widespread use of medical therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia, a need remains for robust surgical therapy in select patients. Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) is an efficacious and safe therapy for patients with bladder outlet obstruction owing to large volume prostates. Data from 13 published cohorts suggest functional outcomes equivalent to open simple prostatectomy with substantially decreased length of hospital stay and risk of transfusion. However, there are few longer term data.

Gastrointestinal tract access for urological natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery.

We conducted a literature review of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), focusing on urologic procedures with gastrointestinal tract access, to update on the development of this novel surgical approach. As part of the methods, a comprehensive electronic literature search for NOTES was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane Library from March 2002 to February 2016 for papers reporting urologic procedures performed utilizing gastrointestinal tract access. A total of 11 peer-reviewed studies examining utility of gastrointestinal access for NOTES urologic procedures were noted, with the first report in 2007. The procedures reported in the studies were total/radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, adrenalectomy, and prostatectomy. The transgastric approach was identified in five studies examining total/radical nephrectomy (n = 2), partial nephrectomy (n = 1), partial cystectomy (n = 1), and adrenalectomy (n = 1). Six studies evaluated transrectal approach for NOTES, describing total/radical nephrectomy (n = 3), partial nephrectomy (n = 1), robotic nephrectomy with adrenalectomy (n = 1) and prostatectomy (n = 1). Feasibility was reported in all studies. Most studies were preclinical and acute, and limited by concerns regarding restricted instrumentation and infection risk. We concluded that gastrointestinal access for urologic NOTES demonstrates promise as described by outlined feasibility studies in preclinical models. Nonetheless, clinical application awaits further advancements in surgical technology and concerns regarding infectious potential.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy can be performed safely in patients aged 80 years and older.

BACKGROUND: Surgery offers the only chance for cure in patients with pancreatic cancer, and a growing number of elderly patients are being offered resection. We examined outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients 80 years and older. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data on pancreaticoduodenectomy patients from 1992 to 2009 to compare outcomes between patients older and younger than 80 years. Variables were compared using t-, Wilcoxon rank-sum, or Fisher's exact tests. Survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test. RESULTS: Patients 80 years and older who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy were similar with respect to sex, race, blood loss, operative times, reoperation, length of stay, and readmission compared to younger patients. There were no differences in overall complications (47% vs. 51%, p = 0.54), major complications (19% vs. 25%, p = 0.25), and mortality (5% vs. 4%, p = 0.53) when comparing older to younger patients. In a subset who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma, older patients (n = 45) had a median survival time of 11.6 months compared to 18.1 months in younger patients (n = 346; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Pancreaticoduodenectomy can be performed safely in select patients 80 years and older. Age alone should not dissuade surgeons from offering patients resection, though elderly patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma appear to have shorter survival than younger patients with the same disease.

Prophylactic pancreatectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm does not negatively impact quality of life: a preliminary study.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainties remain over whether prophylactic surgery or surveillance is the better management option for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas. The aim of this preliminary study was to determine if differences in anxiety and quality of life exist between patients who have surgery or undergo surveillance. METHODS: Recruited patients were given the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, a general survey that evaluates anxiety, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Pancreas, a disease-specific survey that assesses quality of life. Questionnaires were scored by standardized algorithms and compared using Student's t test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Sixteen patients had surgery and 16 patients were undergoing surveillance. Mean age was 66.8 ± 19.9 years. Responses from both groups were remarkably similar. Surgery patients scored higher on the anxiety questionnaire than surveillance patients, although not statistically significant (p = 0.09). Surgery patients scored lower on the functional well-being domain of the quality-of-life instrument (p = 0.03), though there were no differences in overall quality of life. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic surgery does not reduce quality of life, and a protocol of surveillance does not appear to generate undue anxiety in this select patient group. Further investigation with more patients is required to validate these findings.