Single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal versus reusable instruments: a prospective, comparative study of functionality, risk of infection, and costs.

BACKGROUND: The removal of ureteral stent can be performed with disposable or reusable flexible cystoscopes, but limited comparative data are available on functionality, risk of infections, and costs. METHODS: We performed a multicentric, prospective, observational study on patients undergoing in-office ureteral stent removal with Isiris-α® or a reusable Storz™ flexible cystoscope. Study endpoints were the functionality and effectiveness of the devices, the rate of postoperative bacteriuria and UTIs, and the costs of the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were included, 80 (59.2%) treated with reusable cystoscopes and 55 (40.8%) with Isiris-α®. No significant baseline differences between groups were detected. Isiris-α® outperformed the reusable device in terms of quality of vision (p 0.001), manoeuvrability (p 0.001), grasper functionality (p < 0.001), and quality of the procedure (p 0.01). Mean procedure time was shorter with Isiris-α® (p < 0.001) due to a shorter instrument preparation time (p < 0.001). No differences were found in terms of perceived patient pain (p 0.34), nor postoperative bacteriuria or symptomatic UTIs. According to our cost analysis, the in-office procedure performed with Isiris-α® was more expensive (+ 137.8€) but was independent from instrument turnover or disinfection. Among limitations of study we acknowledge the lack of randomization, the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in several patients, and the high rate of missing preoperative urine cultures. CONCLUSIONS: Isiris-α® outperforms reusable cystoscopes for in-office ureteral stent removal in terms of total operative time and quality of the procedure, at the cost of being more expensive. No significant differences in postoperative bacteriuria or symptomatic UTIs were found.

Robotic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) is the actual gold-standard for the treatment of clinically localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (cT1-2 with no indications for nephron-sparing surgery). Limited evidence is currently available on the role of robotics in the field of radical nephrectomy. The aim of the current study was to provide a systematic review of the current evidence on the role of robotic radical nephrectomy (RRN) and to analyze the comparative studies between RRN and open nephrectomy (ON)/LRN. METHODS: A Medline search was performed between 2000-2013 with the terms "robotic radical nephrectomy", "robot-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy", "radical nephrectomy". Six RRN case-series and four comparative studies between RRN and (ON)/pure or hand-assisted LRN were identified. RESULTS: Current literature produces a low level of evidence for RRN in the treatment of RCC, with only one prospective study available. Mean operative time (OT) ranges between 127.8-345 min, mean estimated blood loss (EBL) ranges between 100-273.6 ml, and mean hospital stay (HS) ranges between 1.2-4.3 days. The comparison between RRN and LRN showed no differences in the evaluated outcomes except for a longer OT for RRN as evidenced in two studies. Significantly higher direct costs and costs of the disposable instruments were also observed for RRN. The comparison between RRN and ON showed that ON is characterized by shorter OT but higher EBL, higher need of postoperative analgesics and longer HS. CONCLUSIONS: No advantage of robotics over standard laparoscopy for the treatment of clinically localized RCC was evidenced. Promising preliminary results on oncologic efficacy of RRN have been published on the T3a-b disease. Fields of wider application of robotics should be researched where indications for open surgery still persist.