Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy-impact of a mentorship program on oncological outcomes during the learning curve.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The learning curve for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is estimated to be about 50-200 cases. This study will evaluate the benefit of a mentorship programme after completing a mini-fellowship in RARP by an experienced surgeon who previously trained in open and laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: Our study was a retrospective comparative analysis of RARP performed by a single consultant urologist. A retrospective chart review of the first 120 cases was performed. The 120 patients were divided into three groups of 40 cases. For the first 40 cases, an appropriately qualified mentor was present. The peri-operative and oncological outcomes were compared between the three groups. RESULTS: Operative times significantly decreased with experience (250 min vs 234 min vs 225 min, p < 0.05). Complication rates, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were similar between all groups. There was a higher rate of positive margins in the final group (20% vs 17.5% vs 32.5%, p < 0.5). There was a greater number of pT3 tumours in group 3 (42%, n = 17) compared to groups 1 and 2 (20%, n = 8, and 22.5%, n = 9) which may account for the higher rate of positive margins in this group. CONCLUSION: In the transition of an experienced laparoscopic surgeon to robotic surgery, we showed that there is a benefit of a mentorship programme after a mini-fellowship in reducing the impact of the learning curve on patient outcomes. Ongoing mentorship may be of benefit in cases where a high volume of tumour is suspected and should be avoided in the early part of the learning curve to maximise oncological outcomes.

Spermatic vein embolization as a treatment for symptomatic varicocele.

INTRODUCTION: Varicocele is a relatively common condition in men that causes pain in approximately 10% of cases. There have been few studies to date assessing the improvements in both pain and quality of life parameters associated with spermatic vein embolization (SVE) as a treatment for patients with symptomatic varicocele, so we aimed to assess this. METHODS: A review was carried out of consecutive SVE procedures performed at our institution from 2013-2019. Only patients with painful varicocele were included after other causes of testicular pain were excluded. The technique employed was a combination of distal coil embolization of the spermatic vein with 4-6 mm coils at the level of the inguinal canal, as well as sclerotherapy to prevent reflux of sclerosant. Furthermore, a prospective validated Pain Impact Questionnaire-6 (PIQ-6) was performed to assess for improvement in quality of life. A matched pair Student two-tailed t-test was used to compare mean scores pre- and post-treatment, with 95% confidence intervals presented as T scores and their associated p-values. RESULTS: Over six years, 62 SVE procedures were performed for symptomatic varicocele. Success rate was 95%, with a median followup of nine months. Two patients had a failed procedure on two occasions requiring subsequent surgical ligation. There was one clinically significant recurrence. All components of PIQ-6 score showed a statistically significant reduction post-SVE, most noticeably pain severity and impact on leisure activities. CONCLUSIONS: SVE is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated treatment for symptomatic varicocele, improving pain and quality of life.

Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ cognitive fusion biopsy: Comparing standard and targeted prostate biopsy with final prostatectomy histology.

INTRODUCTION: The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with targeted biopsies of the prostate improves the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Recent studies have shown that targeted prostate biopsies also more accurately predict final histopathology after radical prostatectomy (RP). There are three broad techniques for performing MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: cognitive MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion, software MRI/US fusion, and in-bore MRI-guided. Current practices recommend that a standard systematic 12-core prostate biopsy be performed, as well as targeted biopsies in patients with positive MRI findings. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of histological grading of cognitive MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy by comparing the histology from the targeted biopsy specimens (TB), standard systematic specimens (SB), and the combination of both (CB) specimens with the final histological grade from subsequent prostatectomy. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center review of 115 patients who underwent standard systematic and cognitive MRI/US-targeted biopsy of the prostate before undergoing a RP between 2016 and 2019 was performed. MRI findings, biopsy, final histology International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grades, and patient demographics were collected. Cochran's Q test and McNemar test were used to compare the differences in upgrading, downgrading, and concordance between each biopsy group. RESULTS: The concordance between SB, TB, and CB biopsy were 28.7%, 49.6%, and 50.4%, respectively. There was no significant difference in concordance between TB and CB. Patients were more likely to be downgraded on the final histology when comparing CB with TB alone (26.1% vs. 16.5%, p<0.05). In cases where an ISUP grade 1 cancer was diagnosed on TB (n=24), there was a 62.5% chance that the final histology would be upgraded. In the same sample, when combined with a SB, the risk of upgrading on final histology was reduced to 37.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Although grading concordance between TB and CB were similar, the concomitant use of a SB significantly reduced the rate of upgrading in the final RP histopathology. CB may result in better decision-making regarding treatment options and also have implications for intraoperative planning.

Admission of patients with acute urinary retention leads to a definitive management decision.

BACKGROUND: Acute urinary retention (AUR) is a common urologic emergency. However, its management is not standardized due to lack of clinical guidelines. AIMS: We retrospectively reviewed the treatment of all male patients admitted to our institution with AUR over 12 months. METHODS: Data was obtained from the HIPE (Hospital Inpatient Enquiry) data system, each patient's electronic discharge summary and from patient medical records. RESULTS: There were 130 AUR admissions during the period. About 74 admissions were due to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). Of these, 45.9% (n = 34) passed their trial without catheter (TWOC). The remainder (n = 40) failed their TWOC necessitating recatheterization and consideration for transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) or re-TWOC. An indwelling urinary catheter (IDC) was inserted for 27.5% (n = 11) of patients with a failed TWOC secondary to comorbidities. This group had a mean age of 78 years (range 68-96 years). Of those who failed their TWOC, 32.5% (n = 13) had a TURP on index admission. Of the remaining 16 patients with failed TWOC, 75% (n = 12) were discharged with an IDC and readmitted for an elective TURP with a median waiting time of 55 days (range 17-138 days). 18.75% (n = 3) passed a re-TWOC and thus offset the need to have any surgical intervention and 6.25% (n = 1) proceeded to a radical retropubic prostatectomy for biopsy proven prostate adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSION: Admission of patients with acute urinary retention leads to a definitive management decision and reduced prolonged catheterization.

Laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) and pure LDN, as HALDN and LDN are the two most widely used techniques of DN to treat end-stage renal disease. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we performed a literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane from 01/01/1995 to 31/12/2014. The primary outcome was conversion to an open procedure. Secondary outcomes were warm ischaemia time (WIT), operation time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, and length of stay (LOS). Data analysed were presented as odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), I2, and P values. Subgroup analysis was performed. RESULTS: There were 24 studies included in the meta-analysis; three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one randomised pilot study, two prospective, and 18 retrospective cohort studies. There were no differences in conversion to an open procedure between the two techniques for both RCTs (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.06, 2.90; I2 = 0%, P < 0.001) and cohort studies (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63, 1.78; I2 = 0%, P = 0.84). WIT was shorter for the HALDN (-41.79 s, 95% CI -71.85, -11.74; I2 = 96%, P = 0.006), as was the OT (-26.32 min, 95% CI -40.67, -11.97; I2 = 95%, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in EBL, complications or LOS. CONCLUSION: There is little statistical evidence to recommend one technique. HALDN is associated with a shorter WIT and OT. LDN has equal safety to HALDN. Further studies are required.