Top-down holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) versus traditional HoLEP for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): 1-year outcomes of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The top-down holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) technique recently emerged as a safe and effective modification of traditional HoLEP. In our randomized controlled trial, we compared intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of traditional and top-down HoLEP for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in patients with a prostate size ≥80 g. METHODS: One-hundred patients with BPH and a prostate volume ≥80 cc participated in this prospective randomized controlled trial. Outcome measures were collected and compared, including IPSS, QoL, flow rate, PVR, IIEF-15, PSA, and TRUS prostate volume changes. Perioperative complications were also recorded. All patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in preoperative baseline characteristics between the two surgical groups. The median prostate volume for the traditional and top-down HoLEP groups was 107 and 102 cc, respectively. The operative parameters and postoperative outcomes were comparable for both cohorts. The median enucleation time for traditional HoLEP was 60 min, which was not significantly longer than that of top-down HoLEP (52 min) (p = 0.07). At 3 months follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in transient stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in the traditional HoLEP (4.1%) versus the top-down HoLEP group (2.2%), (p = 0.61). There were no significant differences in functional and sexual outcomes between the two groups at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The HoLEP procedure significantly improves patients' urinary functional outcomes and has comparable postoperative outcomes regardless of the technique utilized.

Oral cavity and oropharyngeal carcinoma disparities in age and survival in Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations of Queensland.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the risk and prognosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations of Queensland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from the Queensland Cancer Registry (QCR) between the years 1982-2018. Main outcome measures were age at diagnosis and cumulative survival to compare the risk and prognosis of oral SCC between the populations. RESULTS: 9424 patients with self-declared ethnicity were identified with oral SCC from the QCR, with a male to female ratio of 2.56:1. Of these patients, 9132 were non-Indigenous (96.9%) and 292 Indigenous (3.1%). Indigenous people were significantly younger at diagnosis (mean (SD) age 54.3 (10.1) years), compared to 62.0 (12.1) years in non-Indigenous people. Mean survival in the full cohort was 4.3 years (SD: 5.6), with Indigenous people presenting a significant shorter mean survival of 2.0 years (SD: 3.5) when compared with 4.4 years (SD: 5.7) in non-Indigenous people (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Indigenous Australians are diagnosed at a significantly younger age and present with worse survival and poorer prognosis. Due to missing variables in the Queensland Cancer Registry, it is not possible in the current study to ascertain the scientific or social reasons behind these disparities. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results from this study can inform public policy and raise awareness in Queensland regarding disparity in oral cancer prognosis.

Performance of a simplified scoring system for risk stratification in oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders screening.

BACKGROUND: Impact and efficiency of oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders screening are most realized in "at-risk" individuals. However, tools that can provide essential knowledge on individuals' risks are not applied in risk-based screening. This study aims to optimize a simplified risk scoring system for risk stratification in organized oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders screening. METHODS: Participants were invited to attend a community-based oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders screening program in Hong Kong. Visual oral examination was performed for all attendees and information on sociodemographic characteristics as well as habitual, lifestyle, familial, and comorbidity risk factors were obtained. Individuals' status of those found to have suspicious lesions following biopsy and histopathology were classified as positive/negative and this outcome was used in a multiple logistic regression analysis with variables collected during screening. Odds ratio weightings were then used to develop a simplified risk scoring system which was validated in an external cohort. RESULTS: Of 979 participants, 4.5% had positive status following confirmatory diagnosis. A 12-variable simplified risk scoring system with weightings was generated with an AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.82, 0.71, and 0.78 for delineating high-risk cases. Further optimization on the validation cohort of 491 participants yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 0.75 and 0.87 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The simplified risk scoring system was able to stratify oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders risk with satisfactory sensitivity and specificity and can be applied in risk-based disease screening.

A new methodology for laboratory evaluation of neurosurgical approaches based on the volume and shape of the surgical space with a mathematical model to quantify the surgical maneuverability in laboratory settings.

We conducted this study to validate the volume/shape of the surgical exposure and to introduce a mathematical model to quantify the maneuverability in a surgical space. We executed the pterional and lateral supraorbital approach four times in fresh cadavers in skull base laboratory. The surgical volumes were filled with a computed tomography (CT)-imageable mixture; CT scans were obtained to evaluate the volume and shape of the surgical space. The volume of the surgical space was 23.60 and 32.90 mL for the lateral supraorbital and pterional approach, respectively, (p < 0.05). The three-dimensional shape of the lateral supraorbital approach was cylindrical and that of the pterional approach pyramidal. The volume of the surgical approach can be used to define, together with other variables, the maneuverability (maneuvering in a surgical volume) by using the following formula [Formula: see text] where M, A, V, and L represent the maneuverability, the degree of the surgical freedom, the volume of the surgical exposure, and the surgical depth, respectively. Volume and shape of the surgical exposure are two objective parameters that can be used to define and contrast different microsurgical approaches in a laboratory setting. The volume of the surgical exposure may be integrated into a mathematical formula defining maneuverability.