Visual extended reality tools in image-guided surgery in urology: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review is to assess the clinical implications of employing various Extended Reality (XR) tools for image guidance in urological surgery. METHODS: In June 2023, a systematic electronic literature search was conducted using the Medline database (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy was designed based on the PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) criteria. Study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registry number CRD42023449025). We incorporated retrospective and prospective comparative studies, along with single-arm studies, which provided information on the use of XR, Mixed Reality (MR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Virtual Reality (VR) in urological surgical procedures. Studies that were not written in English, non-original investigations, and those involving experimental research on animals or cadavers were excluded from our analysis. The quality assessment of comparative and cohort studies was conducted utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, whilst for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the Jadad scale was adopted. The level of evidence for each study was determined based on the guidelines provided by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. RESULTS: The initial electronic search yielded 1,803 papers after removing duplicates. Among these, 58 publications underwent a comprehensive review, leading to the inclusion of 40 studies that met the specified criteria for analysis. 11, 20 and 9 studies tested XR on prostate cancer, kidney cancer and miscellaneous, including bladder cancer and lithiasis surgeries, respectively. Focusing on the different technologies 20, 15 and 5 explored the potential of VR, AR and MR. The majority of the included studies (i.e., 22) were prospective non-randomized, whilst 7 and 11 were RCT and retrospective studies respectively. The included studies that revealed how these new tools can be useful both in preoperative and intraoperative setting for a tailored surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS: AR, VR and MR techniques have emerged as highly effective new tools for image-guided surgery, especially for urologic oncology. Nevertheless, the complete clinical advantages of these innovations are still in the process of evaluation.

Metaverse Surgical Planning with Three-dimensional Virtual Models for Minimally Invasive Partial Nephrectomy.

The recent integration of new virtual visualization modalities with artificial intelligence and high-speed internet connection has opened the door to the advent of the metaverse in medicine. In this totally virtual environment, three-dimensional virtual models (3DVMs) of the patient's anatomy can be visualized and discussed via digital avatars. Here we present for the first time a metaverse preoperative clinical case discussion before minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. The surgeons' digital avatars met in a virtual room and participated in a virtual consultation on the surgical strategy and clamping approach before the procedure. Robotic or laparoscopic procedures are then carried out according to the simulated surgical strategy. We demonstrate how this immersive virtual reality experience overcomes the barriers of distance and how the quality of surgical planning is enriched by a great sense of "being there", even if virtually. Further investigation will improve the quality of interaction with the models and among the avatars.

MRI/real-time ultrasound image fusion guided high-intensity focused ultrasound: a prospective comparative and functional analysis of different ablative techniques.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper was to compare safety and functional outcomes of total, hemi and focal ablation by the latest focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) device. METHODS: This is a prospective study including patients with low to intermediate-risk PCa treated with HIFU by Focal One® device from 11/2018 to 3/2020. Before the treatment all patients underwent mp-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion and standard biopsy. Patients were stratified according to the type of ablation: total, hemi- or focal ablation. Functional data (IPSS, Quality of Life [QoL], IIEF-5, maximum flow [Qmax] and post void residual [PVR] at flowmetry) were assessed preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment. Moreover, the urinary symptoms reported by patients at IPSS questionnaire were divided in "irritative" and "obstructive" and compared. RESULTS: One hundred patients were enrolled. Median prostate volume and lesion diameter were 46 (IQR 25-75) mL and 10 (IQR 6-13) mm. 15, 50 and 35 patients underwent total, hemi- and focal ablation, respectively. No differences were found between them except for operative time (lower in the focal group, P<0.01). Significant lower incidence of irritative symptoms was identified in the focal group compared to the others (P<0.05 at 1 and 3 months of follow-up). No differences were found among the baseline status and the postoperative assessment in terms of obstructive IPSS items, IIEF-5, QoL, Qmax and PVR (all P value>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients' specific HIFU tailoring with the MRI/real-time TRUS Guidance by Focal One® device is able to minimize the side effects of treatment.

Implementing telemedicine for the management of benign urologic conditions: a single centre experience in Italy.

PURPOSE: To assess the use of telemedicine with phone-call visits as a practical tool to follow-up with patients affected by urological benign diseases, whose clinic visits had been cancelled during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Patients were contacted via phone-call and a specific questionnaire was administered to evaluate the health status of these patients and to identify those who needed an "in-person" ambulatory visit due to the worsening of their condition. Secondarily, the patients' perception of a potential shift towards a "telemedicine" approach to the management of their condition and to indirectly evaluate their desire to return to "in-person" clinic visits. RESULTS: 607 were contacted by phone-call. 87.5% (531/607) of the cases showed stability of the symptoms so no clinic in-person or emergency visits were needed. 81.5% (495/607) of patients were more concerned about the risk of contagion than their urological condition. The median score for phone visit comprehensibility and ease of communication of exams was 5/5; whilst patients' perception of phone visits' usefulness was scored 4/5. 53% (322/607) of the interviewees didn't own the basic supports required to be able to perform a real telemedicine consult according to the required standards. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine approach limits the number of unnecessary accesses to medical facilities and represents an important tool for the limitation of the risk of transmission of infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. However, infrastructures, health workers and patients should reach out to a computerization process to allow a wider diffusion of more advanced forms of telemedicine, such as televisit.

Oncological outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer in the contemporary era: A multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) historically yields poor functional outcomes and high complication rates. However, recent reports on robotic sRP show improved results. Our objectives were to evaluate sRP oncological outcomes and predictors of positive margins and biochemical recurrence (BCR). METHODS: We retrospectively collected data of sRP for recurrent prostate cancer after local nonsurgical treatment at 18 tertiary referral centers in United States, Australia and Europe, from 2000 to 2016. SM and BCR were evaluated in a univariate and multivariable analysis. Overall and cancer-specific survival were also assessed. RESULTS: We included 414 cases, 63.5% of them performed after radiotherapy. Before sRP the majority of patients had biopsy Gleason score (GS) ≤7 (55.5%) and imaging negative or with prostatic bed involvement only (93.3%). Final pathology showed aggressive histology in 39.7% (GS ≥9 27.6%), with 52.9% having ≥pT3 disease and 16% pN+. SM was positive in 29.7%. Five years BCR-Free, cancer-specific survival and OS were 56.7%, 97.7% and 92.1%, respectively. On multivariable analysis pathological T (pT3a odds ratio [OR] 2.939, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.469-5.879; ≥pT3b OR 2.428-95% CI 1.333-4.423) and N stage (pN1 OR 2.871, 95% CI 1.503-5.897) were independent predictors of positive margins. Pathological T stage ≥T3b (OR 2.348 95% CI 1.338-4.117) and GS (up to OR 7.183, 95% CI 1.906-27.068 for GS >8) were independent predictors for BCR. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and limited follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary series, sRP showed promising oncological control in the medium term despite aggressive pathological features. BCR risk increased in case of locally advanced disease and higher GS. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Deferring Elective Urologic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Patients' Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the perspective of urological patients on the possibility to defer elective surgery due to the fear of contracting COVID-19. METHODS: All patients scheduled for elective urological procedures for malignant or benign diseases at 2 high-volume centers were administered a questionnaire, through structured telephone interviews, between April 24 and 27, 2020. The questionnaire included 3 questions: (1) In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, would you defer the planned surgical intervention? (2) If yes, when would you be willing to undergo surgery? (3) What do you consider potentially more harmful for your health: the risk of contracting COVID-19 during hospitalization or the potential consequences of delaying surgical treatment? RESULTS: Overall, 332 patients were included (51.5% and 48.5% in the oncology and benign groups, respectively). Of these, 47.9% patients would have deferred the planned intervention (33.3% vs 63.4%; P < .001), while the proportion of patients who would have preferred to delay surgery for more than 6 months was comparable between the groups (87% vs 80%). These answers were influenced by patient age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (in the Oncology group) and by the underlying urological condition (in the benign group). Finally, 182 (54.8%) patients considered the risk of COVID-19 potentially more harmful than the risk of delaying surgery (37% vs 73%; P < .001). This answer was driven by patient age and the underlying disease in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reinforce the importance of shared decision-making before urological surgery, leveraging patients' values and expectations to refine the paradigm of evidence-based medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Outcomes of Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for M0 Castration-resistant Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Reasonable Option in the Era of New Antiandrogen Therapies?

There is little evidence regarding salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) for M0 castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We reviewed oncological results and complications for 23 men with radiographically recurrent M0 CRPC undergoing sRP at six institutions. Sixteen and ten men experienced at least one and one major (Clavien >2) complication, respectively. After sRP, nine men became incontinent, including two with severe incontinence. The majority of men had aggressive extraprostatic disease (≥pT3b 56.5%; pN1 30.4%; Gleason ≥8 65.2%). Postoperatively 69.6% reached undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Seven men had postoperative PSA persistence and six had CRPC persistence. Among the others, biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurred in 68.7% and CRPC in 58.8% at a median of 11 and 31 mo from sRP, respectively. At median follow-up of 4 yr, 17.4% were disease-free, 34.4% had died from PC, and 4.3% had died from other causes. sRP for M0 CRPC is feasible although the risk of complications is significant. A minority of patients can be cured and a significant proportion experience prolonged BCR- and CRPC-free status, thus delaying the need for systemic treatments. Further studies are needed to clarify the role of sRP for M0 CRPC in the era of new antiandrogen therapies. PATIENT SUMMARY: Salvage radical prostatectomy for radiorecurrent M0 castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is feasible, although continence outcomes are suboptimal and the risk of complications is significant. Survival is promising: some men can be cured and others experience a period without evidence of PC or CRPC. More research is needed to confirm our findings and demonstrate survival benefits.

Complication Rate After Antibiotic Prophylaxis with Fosfomycin Versus Fluorochinolones or ß-lactam Antibiotics in Patients Undergoing Prostate Biopsy: A Propensity Score-adjusted Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRBx) or transperineal Bx (TPBx) are considered alternative approaches for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). However, urinary tract infection (UTI) or other complications could be more frequent in the TRBx approach. OBJECTIVE: To determine the complication rate following different antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP; fosfomycin trometamol [FT] vs ß-lactame or fluorochinolones [FQ]) in patients undergoing TRBx or TPBx. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The analyses were based on prospectively collected data of a cohort of patients who underwent TRBx or TPBx for elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA; ≥4ng/ml) or clinical suspicion of PCa, between September 2016 and March 2017. Patients received a single dose of 3g oral FT (group A) or, alternatively, FQ or ß-lactame (group B). INTERVENTION: TRBx versus TPBx. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Adjustment variables consisted of age, PSA, biopsy technique (TPBx vs TRBx), and antibiotic prophylaxis (FT vs ß-lactame or FQ) using 1:1 propensity-score matching. Overall, 526 patients were considered, of whom 258 received FT (group A) and the other 258 received ß-lactame or FQ (group B). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall complications occurred in 390 (75.58%) and major complications in 67/516 (12.98%). Lower prevalence of UTIs was detected in group A (34.1%) compared with that in group B (43.4%; p=0.03), while similar rates of haematuria (54.7% vs 55.4%), haemospermia (39.5% vs 33.0%), and acute urinary retention (11.6% vs 9.3%) were detected in groups A and B. We found that group B (odds ratio [OR]: 1.54; p=0.03), I grade haematuria (OR: 6.17; p<0.01), and II grade haematuria (OR: 5.13; p<0.01) were significantly associated with increased risk of UTIs. CONCLUSIONS: AMP with fluoroquinoles or ß-lactam antibiotics increased the rate of UTIs, when compared with FT, in patients undergoing TRBx or TPBx. The appearance of haematuria or haemospermia is associated with UTIs, suggesting the possibility of tailoring the strategy for prophylaxis in this category of patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, comparing complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus transperineal biopsy, prophylaxis with fluoroquinoles or ß-lactam antibiotics increased the rate of urinary tract infections when compared with fosfomycin trometamol, regardless of the type of biopsy approach.

Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Morbidity and Functional Outcomes from a Large Multicenter Series of Open versus Robotic Approaches.

PURPOSE: Salvage radical prostatectomy has historically yielded a poor functional outcome and a high complication rate. However, recent reports of robotic salvage radical prostatectomy have demonstrated improved results. In this study we assessed salvage radical prostatectomy functional outcomes and complications when comparing robotic and open approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected data on salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after local nonsurgical treatment at 18 tertiary referral centers from 2000 to 2016. The Clavien-Dindo classification was applied to classify complications. Complications and functional outcomes were evaluated by univariable and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: We included 395 salvage radical prostatectomies, of which 186 were open and 209 were robotic. Robotic salvage radical prostatectomy yielded lower blood loss and a shorter hospital stay (each p <0.0001). No significant difference emerged in the incidence of major and overall complications (10.1%, p=0.16, and 34.9%, p=0.67), including an overall low risk of rectal injury and fistula (1.58% and 2.02%, respectively). However, anastomotic stricture was more frequent for open salvage radical prostatectomy (16.57% vs 7.66%, p <0.01). Overall 24.6% of patients had had severe incontinence, defined as 3 or more pads per day, for 12 or 6 months. On multivariable analysis robotic salvage radical prostatectomy was an independent predictor of continence preservation (OR 0.411, 95% CI 0.232-0.727, p=0.022). Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of a standardized surgical technique. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary series to our knowledge salvage radical prostatectomy showed a low risk of major complications and better functional outcomes than previously reported. Robotic salvage radical prostatectomy may reduce anastomotic stricture, blood loss and hospital stay, and improve continence outcomes.