The transobturator suburethral sling: a safe and effective option for all degrees of post prostatectomy urinary incontinence.

INTRODUCTION: Male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is common. The surgical standard of care traditionally has been placement of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) but since its introduction the transobturator male sling has been shown to have particular unique advantages. Our aim was to assess outcomes of a consecutive series of suburethral sling insertions in men presenting with all degrees of post RP SUI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive cohort of men undergoing AdVance sling insertion following RP were studied. Parameters assessed included pre and postoperative urinary function, 24 hour pad use, quality of life (QoL) outcomes, complications and further treatments. Degree of incontinence was categorized as mild (1-2), moderate (3-5) or severe (≥ 6) depending on daily pad use. Patients were reviewed at 1, 4 and 6 months. The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF) was used to assess symptom severity and QoL outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were included, mean age 68 and mean time to sling post RP 34 (8-113) months. Preoperative degree of incontinence: mild 22%, moderate 58%, severe 20%. Fourteen percent had undergone post RP radiation therapy (RT). In total 73% experienced complete resolution of symptoms post sling, 12% significant improvement, 15% no reduction in pad use. Sixty percent with severe incontinence were classified as cured (no pad or 1 dry pad for security reasons). When patients with preoperative RT were excluded, cure rate rose to 82%. On follow up survey at 30 months (mean), the ICIQ-SF score decreased from baseline 17.7 (9-21.0) to 8.0 (0-20) (p < 0.0001), CI 95% (8-12). CONCLUSIONS: Suburethral slings are effective and safe for all degrees of post RP incontinence, are associated with improved QoL parameters and with appropriate selection and counseling are a viable option for more severe degrees of post RP SUI.

A comparison of intra-operative diagnosis to histopathological diagnosis of acute appendicitis in paediatric and adult cohorts: an analysis of over 1000 patients.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is a common general surgical emergency. The role of removing a normal appendix is debated. However, this relies on accurate intra-operative diagnosis of a normal appendix by the operating surgeon. This study aimed to compare surgeon's intra-operative assessment to final histological result acute appendicitis in paediatric and adult patients. METHODS: All patients who underwent appendicectomy over a 14-year period in a general surgical department were identified using the prospective Lothian Surgical Audit system and pathology reports retrieved to identify final histological diagnosis. Open appendicectomy was selected to examine, as the routine practise at our institution is to remove a normal appendix at open appendicectomy. RESULTS: A total of 1035 open appendicectomies were performed for clinically suspected appendicitis. Sensitivity of intra-operative diagnosis of appendicitis with operating surgeon was high at 95.13% with no difference between trainee and consultant surgeon or between adult and paediatric cases. Specificity of intra-operative diagnosis was lower in the paediatric group (32.58%) than in the adult group (40.58%). Women had a higher rate of negative appendicectomy than men. CONCLUSION: The results of this study highlight some discordance between histological evidence of acute appendicitis and intra-operative impression. Therefore other clinical variables and not just macroscopic appearance alone should be used when deciding to perform appendicectomy.