Perioperative Outcomes of Transurethral Resection, Open Prostatectomy, and Laser Therapy in the Surgical Treatment of Benign Prostatic Obstruction: A "Real-World" Data Analysis from the URO-Cert Prostate Centers.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study is to compare length of hospital stay, transfusion rates, and re-intervention rates during hospitalization for transurethral resection of the prostate (TUR-P), open prostatectomy (OP), and laser therapy (LT) for surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). METHODS: URO-Cert is an organization, in which clinical data of prostatic diseases from 2 university, 19 public, and 3 private hospitals and 270 office-based urologists are collected in order to document treatment quality. Data on diagnostics, therapy, and course of disease are recorded web based. The analysis includes datasets from 2005 to 2017. RESULTS: Of 10,420 patients, 8,389 were treated with TUR-P, 1,334 with OP, and 697 with LT. Median length of hospital stay was 6 days (IQR: 4-7) for TUR-P, 9 days (IQR: 7-11) for OP, and 5 days (IQR: 4-6) for LT (p < 0.001). Risk for a hospital stay ≥7 days was higher for OP versus TUR-P (OR: 7.25; 95% CI = 6.27-8.36; p < 0.001) and LT (OR: 17.89; 95% CI = 14.12-22.65; p < 0.001) and higher for TUR-P versus LT (OR: 2.47; 95% CI = 2.03-3.01; p < 0.001). OP had a significantly higher risk for transfusions than TUR-P (OR: 2.44; 95% CI = 1.74-3.41; p < 0.001) and LT (OR: 3.32; 95% CI = 1.56-7.01; p < 0.001). Transfusion rates were not significantly different between TUR-P and LT (OR: 1.36; 95% CI = 0.66-2.79; p = 0.51). Risk of re-intervention was not different between all 3 approaches. CONCLUSION: OP was associated with higher transfusion rates and longer hospital stay than TUR-P and LT. Risk of transfusion was not different between TUR-P and LT, but TUR-P was inferior to LT concerning length of hospital stay. Re-intervention rates during hospitalization did not differ between the groups.

Adherence to European Association of Urology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines Criteria for Inguinal and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Penile Cancer Patients-A Survey Assessment in German-speaking Countries on Behalf of the European Prospective Penile Cancer Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Urologists' adherence to European Association of Urology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations to perform inguinal (ILND) and pelvic (PLND) lymph node dissection in penile cancer (PC) patients is not known. OBJECTIVE: To assess a German-speaking European cohort of urologists based on their criteria to perform ILND and PLND in PC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 14-item survey addressing general issues of PC treatment was developed and sent to 45 clinical centers in Germany (n = 34), Austria (n = 8), Switzerland (n = 2), and Italy (n = 1). INTERVENTION: Two of the 14 questions assessed the criteria to perform ILND and ipsilateral PLND. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Correct responses for ILND and PLND criteria were assessed. Based on a multivariate logistic-regression-model, criteria independently predicting guideline adherence were identified. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 557 urologists participated in the survey, of whom 43.5%, 19.3%, and 37.2% were residents in training, certified, and in leading positions, respectively. ILND and PLND criteria were correctly identified by 35.2% and 23.9%, respectively. Of the participants, 23.3% used external sources for survey completion. The use of auxiliary tools (odds ratio [OR] 1.57; p[bootstrapped] = 0.028) and participants outside of Germany (OR 0.56; p[bootstrapped] = 0.006) were predictors of ILND guideline adherence. The number of PC patients treated yearly (p = 0.012; OR 1.06) and the use of auxiliary tools (p < 0.001; OR 5.88) were predictors of PLND adherence. Department size, healthcare status, professional status, and responsibility for PC surgery did not predict endpoints. Limitations include sample size and results in comparison with retrospective studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate overall suboptimal knowledge of the correct indications to perform ILND and PLND in PC patients among the surveyed urologists. We propose that governments and healthcare providers should be encouraged to centralize PC management. PATIENT SUMMARY: The management of inguinal and pelvic lymph nodes is crucial for the survival of penile cancer patients. Disease rarity mandates referral to clinical practice guidelines for appropriate treatment selection.