Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic vs open simple prostatectomy in the modern robotic era: results from the National Inpatient Sample.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes and hospitalisation cost between open (OSP) and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) in the contemporary robotic era. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The NIS was queried for cases of OSP and RASP for the treatment of BPH between 2013 and 2016. Perioperative complications, unadjusted hospital cost and length of stay (LOS) were compared between RASP and OSP. Smoothed linear regression curves comparing hospitalisation cost by increasing LOS was stratified by surgical approach to identify point of cost equivalency between RASP and OSP. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to construct a hospitalisation cost model to examine the contribution of the robotic approach and LOS to hospitalisation cost. RESULTS: The total analytical cohort included 2551 OSP and 704 RASP procedures. Patients undergoing RASP were younger, at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 68 (63-73) vs 71 (65-77) years, and with less comorbidity (76.8% vs 86.5%, P < 0.01). RASP was associated with fewer total complications (11.1% vs 29.2%, P < 0.01) and a greater likelihood of routine discharge to home rather than another facility (88.9% vs 76.7%, P < 0.01). While LOS was shorter with RASP (median [IQR], 2 [1-3] vs 4 [3-6] days, P < 0.01), total unadjusted hospitalisation cost (in United States dollars) was greater (median [IQR], $10 855 [$7965-$15 675] vs $13 467 [$10 572-$17 722], P < 0.01). Presence of any complication increased both LOS and hospitalisation cost (P < 0.01). Linear regression modelling determined the point of cost equivalence between RASP staying a median of 2 days was an OSP case staying between 5 and 6 days. On multivariable regression analysis, the robotic approach contributed an additional $6175 (P < 0.01) to the cost model, whereas each additional day of hospitalisation contributed $1687 (P < 0.01), suggesting LOS would need to be 3-4 days shorter with RASP to offset surgical costs of the robot. CONCLUSIONS: While RASP appears to have significantly better perioperative complication rates with shorter LOS and likely discharge to home, total hospitalisation cost remained greater, likely related to upfront operative costs. While this retrospective study is limited by selection bias for patients undergoing RASP, the benefits of improved convalescence, discharge to home, and lower rate of perioperative complications appear to justify performance of RASP in an experienced pelvic robotic centre despite relatively greater hospitalisation cost if referral to an experienced holmium laser enucleation of the prostate centre is not feasible.

Design and validation of a low-cost, high-fidelity model for robotic pyeloplasty simulation training.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Owing to restrictions in operative experiences, urology residents can no longer solely rely on 'hands-on' operative time to master their surgical skills by the end of residency. Simulation training could help residents master basic surgical skills and steps of a procedure to maximize time in the operative room. However, simulators can be expensive or tedious to set up, limiting the availability to residents and training programs. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to develop and validate an inexpensive, high-fidelity training model for robotic pyeloplasty. STUDY DESIGN: Pyeloplasty models were created using Dragon Skin® FX-Pro tissue-mimicking silicone cast over 3-dimensional molds. Urology faculty and trainees completed a demographic questionnaire. The participants viewed a brief instructional video and then independently performed robotic dismembered pyeloplasty on the model. Acceptability and content validity were evaluated via post-task evaluation of the model. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing procedure completion time, the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) score, blinded subjective physical evaluation of repair quality (1-10 scale), and flow rate between experts and novices. RESULTS: In total, 5 urology faculty, 6 fellows, and 14 residents participated. The median robotic console experience among faculty, fellows, and residents was 8 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 6-11), 3.5 years (IQR = 2-4 years), and 0 years (IQR = 0-0.5 years), respectively. The median procedure completion time was 29 min (IQR = 26-40 min), and the median flow rate was 1.11 mL/s (IQR = 0-1.34 mL/s). All faculty had flow rates >1.25 mL/s and procedure times <30 min compared with 2 of 6 fellows and none of the residents (P < 0.001). All faculty, half of the fellows, and none of the residents achieved a GEARS score ≥20, with a median resident score of 12.5 (IQR = 8-13) (P < 0.001). For repair quality, all faculty scored ≥9 (out of 10), all fellows scored ≥8, and the median score among residents was 6 (IQR = 2-6) (P < 0.001). The material cost was $1.32/model, and the average production time was 0.12 person-hours/model. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This low-cost pyeloplasty model exhibits acceptability and content validity. Construct validity is supported by significant correlation between participant expertise and simulator performance across multiple assessment domains. The model has excellent potential to be used as a training tool in urology and allows for repetitive practice of pyeloplasty skills before live cases.

Laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of small renal tumors: long-term oncologic outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Unlike percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of small renal tumors, there are limited data assessing the long-term efficacy of laparoscopic RFA. Although the ablation cannot be visualized as reliably as with cryoablation, laparoscopic RFA allows for improved mobilization and placement of probes under direct vision. We reviewed our experience with laparoscopic RFA to assess long-term oncologic outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of all patients who had undergone laparoscopic RFA for pT1a renal tumors from April 2000 to April 2010. Demographic, clinical, and radiologic data were assessed to determine indications and evidence for recurrence of disease. Radiologic recurrence was defined as any new enhancement (>10 HU) after absence of enhancement on initial negative 6-week computed tomography. RESULTS: Data were available for 79 patients who had 111 small renal masses treated over the 10-year period. The median tumor diameter was 2.2 cm and intraoperative biopsy identified renal cell carcinoma in 77%. The median follow-up was 59 months with an estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival of 93.3%. The overall rate of complications was 8.8% with a 3.8% rate of major complications. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term experience with laparoscopic RFA demonstrates that it is a safe and effective option for the treatment of small renal tumors. Five-year oncologic outcomes appear to be comparable to extirpation.

Laparoscopic-guided radiofrequency ablation is safe for the treatment of enhancing renal masses among patients prescribed antithrombotic agents.

Patients undergoing laparoscopic-guided radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) for the treatment of a renal mass are commonly prescribed antithrombotic agents for the management of comorbid medical diseases. We retrospectively evaluated the safety of LRFA in this group. From October 2005 to June 2010, 109 patients underwent LRFA. Antithrombotic therapy was prescribed to 52 of these patients. Agents were managed the week of surgery per current practice guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians. Intraoperatively, patients prescribed at least one antithrombotic agent lost a median of 10 mL of blood, while patients not on an antithrombotic agent also lost 10 mL of blood (P = .828). Both groups had a similar rate of procedure-related complications (intraoperative, P = 1.00; postoperative, P = .673). No patient required a blood transfusion or experienced a postoperative thromboembolic event. In conclusion, when current practice guidelines are followed, LRFA is safe among patients prescribed antithrombotic agents.