Indications, results and safety profile of transperineal sector biopsies (TPSB) of the prostate: a single centre experience of 634 cases.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a protocol for transperineal sector biopsies (TPSB) of the prostate and present the clinical experience of this technique in a UK population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of a single-centre experience of TPSB approach was undertaken that preferentially, but not exclusively, targeted the peripheral zone of the prostate with 24-38 cores using a 'sector plan'. Procedures were carried out under general anaesthetic in most patients. Between January 2007 and August 2011, 634 consecutive patients underwent TPSB for the following indications: prior negative transrectal biopsy (TRB; 174 men); primary biopsy in men at risk of sepsis (153); further evaluation after low-risk disease diagnosed based on a 12-core TRB (307). RESULTS: Prostate cancer was found in 36% of men after a negative TRB; 17% of these had disease solely in anterior sectors. As a primary diagnostic strategy, prostate cancer was diagnosed in 54% of men (median PSA level was 7.4 ng/mL). Of men with Gleason 3+3 disease on TRB, 29% were upgraded and went on to have radical treatment. Postoperative urinary retention occurred in 11 (1.7%) men, two secondary to clots. Per-urethral bleeding requiring hospital stay occurred in two men. There were no cases of urosepsis. CONCLUSIONS: TPSB of the prostate has a role in defining disease previously missed or under-diagnosed by TRB. The procedure has low morbidity.

Live surgical education: a perspective from the surgeons who perform it.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the experience and views regarding live surgical broadcasts (LSB) among European urologists attending the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Society (ERUS) congress in September 2012. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed via email inviting the participants of the ERUS congress with experience of LSB to share their opinions about LSB. The outcomes measured included; personal experience of LSB, levels of anxiety faced and the perceived surgical quality. The impact of factors, such as communication/team-working, travel fatigue and lack of specific equipment were also evaluated. RESULTS: In all, 106 surgeons responded with 98 (92.5%) reporting personal experience of LSB; 6.5% respondents noted 'significant anxiety' increasing to 19.4% when performing surgery away from home (P < 0.001). Surgical quality was perceived as 'slightly worse' and 'significantly worse' by 16.1% and 2.2%, which deteriorated further to 23.9% and 3.3% respectively in a 'foreign' environment (P = 0.005). In all, 10.9% of surgeons 'always' brought their own surgical team compared with 37% relying on their host institution; 2.4% raised significant concerns with their team and 18.8% encountered significantly more technical difficulties. Lack of specific equipment (10.3%), language difficulties (6.2%) and jet lag (7.3%) were other significant factors reported. In all, 75% of surgeons perceived the audience wanted a slick demonstration; however, 52.2% and 42.4% respectively also reported the audience wished the surgeon to struggle or manage a complication during a LSB. CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of surgeons had significantly heightened anxiety levels and lower perceived performance during LSB, which in a 'foreign' environment seemed to affect a greater proportion of surgeons. Various factors appear to impact surgical performance raising concerns about the appropriateness of unregulated LSB as a teaching method. To mitigate these concerns, surgeons' performing live surgery feel that the operation needs to be well planned using appropriate equipment; with many considering bringing their own team or operating from home on a video link.