Same day discharge for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective cohort study documenting an Australian approach.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of robotic surgical systems has significantly impacted urological surgery, arguably more so than other surgical disciplines. The focus of our study was length of hospital stay - patients have traditionally been discharged day 1 post-robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), however, during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and consequential resource limitations, our centre has facilitated a cohort of same-day discharges with initial success. METHODS: We conducted a prospective tertiary single-centre cohort study of a series of all patients (n = 28) - undergoing RARP between January and April 2021. All patients were considered for a day zero discharge pathway which consisted of strict inclusion criteria. At follow-up, each patient's perspective on their experience was assessed using a validated post-operative satisfaction questionnaire. Data were reviewed retrospectively for all those undergoing RARP over the study period, with day zero patients compared to overnight patients. RESULTS: Overall, 28 patients 20 (71%) fulfilled the objective criteria for day zero discharge. Eleven patients (55%) agreed pre-operatively to day zero discharge and all were successfully discharged on the same day as their procedure. There was no statistically significant difference in age, BMI, ASA, Charlson score or disease volume. All patients indicated a high level of satisfaction with their procedure. Median time from completion of surgery to discharge was 426 min (7.1 h) in the day zero discharge cohort. CONCLUSION: Day zero discharge for RARP appears to deliver high satisfaction, oncological and safety outcomes. Therefore, our study demonstrates early success with unsupported same-day discharge in carefully selected and pre-counselled patients.

Active involvement of nursing staff in reporting and grading complication-intervention events-Protocol and results of the CAMUS Pilot Nurse Delphi Study.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to gain experienced nursing perspective on current and future complication reporting and grading in Urology, establish the CAMUS CCI and quality control the use of the Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC) in nursing staff. Subjects and Methods: The 12-part REDCap-based Delphi survey was developed in conjunction with expert nurse, urologist and methodologist input. Certified local and international inpatient and outpatient nurses specialised in urology, perioperative nurses and urology-specific advanced practice nurses/nurse practitioners will be included. A minimum sample size of 250 participants is targeted. The survey assesses participant demographics, nursing experience and opinion on complication reporting and the proposed CAMUS reporting recommendations; grading of intervention events using the existing CDC and the proposed CAMUS Classification; and rating various clinical scenarios. Consensus will be defined as ≥75% agreement. If consensus is not reached, subsequent Delphi rounds will be performed under Steering Committee guidance. Results: Twenty participants completed the pilot survey. Median survey completion time was 58 min (IQR 40-67). The survey revealed that 85% of nursing participants believe nurses should be involved in future complication reporting and grading but currently have poor confidence and inadequate relevant background education. Overall, 100% of participants recognise the universal demand for reporting consensus and 75% hold a preference towards the CAMUS System. Limitations include variability in nursing experience, complexity of supplemental grades and survey duration. Conclusion: The integration of experienced nursing opinion and participation in complication reporting and grading systems in a modern and evolving hospital infrastructure may facilitate the assimilation of otherwise overlooked safety data. Incorporation of focused teaching into routine nursing education will be essential to ensure quality control and stimulate awareness of complication-related burden. This, in turn, has the potential to improve patient counselling and quality of care.

The utility of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis in the Australian setting.

Objectives: To investigate the utility of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer diagnosis in the Australian setting. Patients and methods: All consecutive men who underwent a prostate biopsy (transperineal or transrectal) at Royal Melbourne Hospital between July 2017 to June 2019 were included, totalling 332 patients. Data were retrospectively collected from patient records. For each individual patient, the risk of prostate cancer diagnosis at biopsy based on clinical findings was determined using the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator, with and without incorporation of MRI findings. Results: MRI has good diagnostic accuracy for clinically significant prostate cancer. A PI-RADS 2 or lower finding has a negative predictive value of 96% for clinically significant cancer, and a PI-RADS 3, 4 or 5 MRI scan has a sensitivity of 93%. However, MRI has a false negative rate of 6.5% overall for clinically significant prostate cancers. Pre- biopsy MRI may reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies, as up to 50.0% of negative or ISUP1 biopsies have MRI PI-RADS 2 or lower. Incorporation of MRI findings into the ERSPC calculator improved predictive performance for all prostate cancer diagnoses (AUC 0.77 vs 0.71, P = .04), but not for clinically significant cancer (AUC 0.89 vs 0.87, P = .37). Conclusion: MRI has good sensitivity and negative predictive value for clinically significant prostate cancers. It is useful as a pre-biopsy tool and can be used to significantly reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies. However, MRI does not significantly improve risk predictions for clinically significant cancers when incorporated into the ERSPC risk calculator.