Nephrometry scores: a validation of three systems for peri-operative outcomes in retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the RENAL, PADUA and SPARE nephrometry scoring systems for use in retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nephrometry scores were calculated for 322 consecutive patients receiving retroperitoneal RAPN at a tertiary referral centre from 2017. Patients with multiple tumours were excluded. Scores were correlated with peri-operative outcomes, including the trifecta (warm ischaemia time <25 min, no peri-operative complications and a negative surgical margin), both as continuous and categorical variables. Comparisons were performed using Spearman correlation and ability to predict the trifecta was assessed using binomial logistical regression. RESULTS: All three scoring systems correlated significantly with the main variables (operating time, warm ischaemia time and estimated blood loss), both as continuous and categorical variables. Only PADUA and SPARE were able to predict achievement of the trifecta (PADUA area under the curve [AUC] 0.623, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.559-0.668; SPARE AUC 0.612, 95% CI 0.548-0.677). CONCLUSION: This study validates the RENAL, PADUA and SPARE scoring systems to predict key intra-operative outcomes in retroperitoneal RAPN. Only PADUA and SPARE were able to predict achievement of the trifecta. As a simplified version of the PADUA scoring system with comparable outcomes, we recommend using the SPARE system.

The role of urodynamics in the surgical management of benign prostatic obstruction.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) is a common cause of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in elderly men. However, such symptoms are often caused by primary detrusor overactivity or underactivity. Surgical management where BPO is absent or merely incidental has a lower chance of success, and exposes the patient to the potential complications of surgery. This review discusses the diagnostic challenges facing this common presentation. RECENT FINDINGS: Most evidence comes from small, historical prospective cohort studies. A Cochrane review found only two studies that met the prespecified inclusion criteria. It concluded that urodynamics changed decision-making regarding surgery for LUTS but it was not possible to determine whether this impacted upon outcome. A systematic review of several noninvasive alternatives to urodynamics could not recommend any of them over urodynamic pressure-flow study assessment. Further research is currently in progress, the 'UPSTREAM' study, which is a randomized, multicentre trial. Men are randomized to undergo investigation with clinical evaluation and uroflowmetry, or to additionally receive urodynamics. The primary aim is to determine the impact of urodynamics on the assessment pathway. SUMMARY: Assessment of BPO involves determining whether it has a contributory role in individual patients. This is a crucial factor in outcome, as surgery can give poor results if the symptoms are principally caused by detrusor dysfunction (overactivity or underactivity). Urodynamics can help determine this if undertaken to a suitable standard. Further research will identify the precise role of this test modality.