Outcomes of open versus robotic partial nephrectomy: a 20-year single institution experience.

Robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) has emerged in urologic practice for the management of appropriately sized renal masses. We provide a 20-year comparison of the outcomes of open partial nephrectomy (OPN) versus RPN for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at our institution. An IRB-approved retrospective review was conducted of RCC patients at a single institution from 2000 to 2022 who underwent RPN or OPN. In addition to demographics, procedural details including ischemia and operative time were collected. Oncologic outcomes were evaluated through Kaplan-Meier statistical analysis to determine recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) analysis. 849 patients underwent RPN while 385 underwent OPN. 61% were male with average age of 58.8 ± 12.8 years. Operative time was shorter in the open group (184 vs 200 min, p = 0.002), as was ischemia time (16 vs 19 min, p = 0.047). However, after 2012, RPN became more common than OPN with improving ischemia time. RPN patients had significantly improved RFS (HR 0.45, p = 0.0004) and OS (HR 0.51, p = 0.0016) when controlled for T-stage and margin status. More > pT1 masses were managed with OPN than RPN (11.2 vs 5.4%, p < 0.0001). At our institution, RPN had an increasing incidence with reduced ischemia time compared to OPN over the last 10 years. While higher stage renal masses were more often managed with OPN, selective use of RPN does offer improved oncologic outcomes. Further investigation is needed to evaluate optimization of the selection of RPN versus OPN in the nephron-sparing management of renal masses.

Ejaculatory and erectile function outcomes following holmium laser enucleation of the prostate.

PURPOSE: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a surgical treatment option for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Many men develop retrograde ejaculation postprocedure, but there is conflicting evidence regarding sexual function outcomes post-HoLEP. We sought to examine significant variations in patient-reported erectile and ejaculatory function within 12 months post-HoLEP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study for patients who underwent HoLEP between Nov 2018 and Feb 2022. Of the reviewed patients, 277 patients met inclusion criteria and completed pre and postoperative questionnaires, which included the Male Sexual Health Questionnaire- Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MSHQ-EJD) and the International Index of Erectile Function/Sexual Health Inventory for Men (IIEF-5/SHIM). Surveys were provided to patients up to 12 months postprocedure. Demographics and comorbidities associated with sexual dysfunction were collected. Responses to each question were analyzed to detect sub-categorical variations in sexual function as the secondary objective. Data was analyzed by using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: There was a significant decline in total scores for the MSHQ-EJD (8.70 pre-HoLEP vs. 6.58 post HoLEP, p ≤ 0.001) including a significant decline (p < 0.005) in questions 1-3 which assess ejaculatory ability, strength, and volume. There was not a significant decline in question 4 which assesses bother (2.552 pre-HoLEP vs. 3.119 post-HoLEP, p = 0.526). There was not a significant decline in the IIEF-5/SHIM postoperatively (11.51 pre-HoLEP vs. 13.327 post-HoLEP, p = 0.498). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing HoLEP do not experience a decline in erectile function. Patients do experience a decline in ejaculatory function but did not find this bothersome.