Effect of a Modified Technique of Posterior Reconstruction by Iliopectineal Ligament Suspension During Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy on Early Continence: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a modified technique of posterior reconstruction by iliopectineal ligament suspension during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on recovery of early continence. METHODS: A prospective, single surgeon, single centre, randomised controlled trial was performed from August 2018 to March 2020 with 171 patients (92 control vs 79 experimental). The posterior reconstruction was done using a standard technique in the control group and was modified for the experimental group by incorporating not only the "Rocco" stitch between Denonvilliers' fascia and the rhabdosphincter but also the iliopectineal ligaments bilaterally to further improve posterior support with this suspensory 'hammock'. Both groups of patients were followed for a year with questionnaires and 24-hour pad tests. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable in terms of baseline demographic, clinical, and pathological characteristics. With regards to recovery of urinary continence, no statistically significant differences were found for socially continent (0-1 pads per day) or fully continent (0 pads per day) rates at all time points examined (1, 3, 6, 12 months). Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups for presence of urinary symptoms, bowel symptoms, sexual function, and hormonal symptoms. CONCLUSION: The modified technique of posterior reconstruction by iliopectineal ligament suspension is not associated with improved early continence as compared to the standard posterior reconstruction technique during RARP. Future studies may want to explore other variations of suspensory sutures that could strengthen posterior urethral support to achieve earlier recovery of continence.

Assessment of the economic relevance of the use of single-use digital flexible ureteroscopes: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Breakages and repairs related to flexible digital reusable ureteroscopes (flURS) are expensive. Thus, we aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of single-use flexible digital ureteroscopes (SUDFU). METHODS: We conducted a literature review on MEDLINE and EMBASE until September 19, 2018. Systematic reviews and guidelines were assessed for methodologic quality by using standardized grids (R-AMSTAR and AGREE-II). Original studies were analyzed according to local customized grids. The CAPS (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) tool enabled the assessment of the economic aspects in the literature. We also collected local data over a year in 2017-2018 and conducted an economic evaluation by cost minimization, comparing SUDFU and flURS in our center. By generating different flURS breakage reduction scenarios, we aimed to demonstrate the budgetary impact that would have SUFDU introduction in our center. RESULTS: Five economic studies were included. Data on flURS showed breakage rates between 6.4% and 13.2%, and mean numbers of interventions before breakage between 7.5 and 14.4. Four of the five economic analyses suggested a higher cost per intervention with SUDFU. Our local data demonstrated similar results (6.4% and 11.8 cases) and enabled us to estimate the annual number of ureteroscopies for which SUDFU would become profitable: 11-26 (depending on the chosen device). Furthermore, we illustrated how selective use of SUFDU can reduce annual costs by avoiding breakages in different scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: The mean cost per intervention with SUDFU is usually higher than with flURS in high-volume centers and exclusive use becomes unprofitable from a small number of cases.

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block with ultrasound-guided penile nerve block for analgesia during pediatric circumcision.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal analgesia for circumcision is still debated. The dorsal penile nerve block has been shown to be superior to topical and caudal analgesia. Recently, the ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block (group pudendal) has been popularized. This randomized, blinded clinical trial compared group pudendal with ultrasound-guided dorsal penile nerve block (group penile) under general anesthesia for pediatric circumcision. METHODS: Prepubertal males aged 1-12 years undergoing elective circumcision were randomized to either group. The primary outcome was postoperative face, legs, activity, cry, consolability (FLACC) scores. Our secondary outcomes included parent's postoperative pain measure, analgesic consumption during the first 24 hours, surgeon's and parent's satisfaction, time to perform the block, hemodynamic changes intraoperatively and total time in postanesthesia care unit and until discharge. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients were included for analysis (77 in group pudendal and 78 in group penile). Mean age was 7.3 years old. FLACC scores were not statistically different between groups (p=0.19-0.97). Surgeon satisfaction was higher with group pudendal (90.8% vs 56.6% optimal, p<0.01). Intraoperative hemodynamic changes (>20% rise of heart rate or blood pressure) were higher in group pudendal (33.8% vs 9.0%, p<0.01) as was intraoperative fentanyl use (1.3 vs 1.0 µg/kg, p<0.01). Other secondary outcomes were not statistically different. DISCUSSION: Both ultrasound-guided blocks, performed under general anesthesia, provide equivalent postoperative analgesia for pediatric circumcision as evidenced by low pain scores and opioid consumption. Surgeon satisfaction was higher in the pudendal group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03914365.

Opioid use after uro-oncologic surgeries in time of opioid crisis.

INTRODUCTION: Recent literature emphasizes how overprescription and lack of guidelines contribute to wide variation in opioid prescribing practices and opioid-related harms. We conducted a prospective, observational study to evaluate opioid prescriptions among uro-oncologic patients discharged following elective in-patient surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent four surgeries were included: open retropubic radical prostatectomy, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. The primary outcome was the dose of opioids used after discharge (in oral morphine equivalents [MEq]). Secondary outcomes included: opioid requirements for 80% of the patients, management of unused opioids, opioid use three months postoperative, opioid prescription refills, and guidance about opioid disposal. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included for analysis. Patients used a mean of 30 MEq (95% confidence interval 17.8-42.2) at home and 80% of the patients used 50 MEq or less. A mean of 40.4 MEq per patient was overprescribed. Fifty percent of the patients kept the remaining opioids at home, with only 20.0% returning them to their pharmacy. After three months, 5.0% of the patients were using opioids at least occasionally. Three patients needed a new opioid prescription. Forty percent reported having received information regarding management of unused opioids. CONCLUSIONS: We found 60% of opioids prescribed were unused, with half of our patients keeping these unused tablets at home. Our results suggest appropriate opioid prescription amounts needed for urological cancer surgery, with 80% of the patients using 50 MEq or less of morphine equivalents.

Perception and satisfaction of patients after telemedicine urology consultations: A matched analysis with physicians' perspective.

INTRODUCTION: During the first regional COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020, we conducted a study aimed at evaluating completeness of telemedicine consultation in urology. Of 1679 consultations, 67% were considered completely managed by phone. The aim of the present study was to assess patients' experience and satisfaction with telemedicine and to compare them with urologists' perceptions about quality and completeness of the telemedicine consultation. METHODS: We contacted a randomly selected sample of patients (n=356) from our previous study to enquire about their experience. We used a home patient experience questionnaire, inspired by the Patient Experiences Questionnaire for Out-of-Hours Care (PEQOHC) and the Consumer Assessment Health Profile Survey (CAHPS). RESULTS: Of 356 patients contacted, 315 agreed to complete the questionnaire. Urological consultations were for non-oncological (104), oncological (121), cancer suspicion (41), and pediatric (49) indications. Mean patient satisfaction score after telemedicine consultation was 8.8/10 (median 9/10) and 86.3% of patients rated the quality of the consultation as either excellent (54.6%) or very good (31.7%). Consultations regarding cancer suspicion had the lowest score (8.3/10). Overall, 46.7% of all patients would have preferred an in-person visit outside of the pandemic situation. Among patients whose consultations were rated suboptimal by urologists, almost a third more (31.2%) would have preferred an in-person visit (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Despite high reported patient satisfaction rates with telemedicine, it is noteworthy that nearly half of the patients would have preferred an in-person visit. Post-pandemic, it will be important to incorporate telemedicine as an alternative, while retaining and offering in-person visits.

A prospective, multisite study analyzing the percentage of urological cases that can be completely managed by telemedicine.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the development of telemedicine due to confinement measures. However, the percentage of outpatient urological cases that could be managed completely by telemedicine outside of the COVID-19 pandemic remains to be determined. We conducted a prospective, multisite study involving all urologists working in the region of Quebec City. METHODS: During the first four weeks of the regional confinement, 18 pediatric and adult urologists were asked to determine, after each telemedicine appointment, if it translated into a complete (CCM), incomplete (ICM), or suboptimal case management (SCM, adequate only in the context of the pandemic). RESULTS: A total of 1679 appointments representing all urological areas were registered. Overall, 67.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.3; 69.8), 27.1% (25.0; 29.3), and 4.3% (3.5; 5.4) were reported as CCM, SCM, and ICM, respectively. The CCM ratio varied according to the reason for consultation, with cancer suspicion (52.9% [42.9; 62.8]) and pediatric reasons (38.0% [30.0; 46.6]) showing the lowest CCM percentages. CCM percentages also varied significantly based on the setting where it was performed, ranging from 61.1% (private clinic) to 86.8% (endourology and general hospital). CONCLUSIONS: We show that two-thirds of all urological outpatient cases could be completely managed by telemedicine outside of the pandemic. After the pandemic, it will be important to incorporate telemedicine as an alternative for a patient's first or followup visit, especially those with geographical, pathological, and socioeconomic considerations.