Transperitoneal vs. Retroperitoneal Approach in Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for Posterior Renal Tumors: A Retrospective, Multi-Center, Comparative Study.

Purpose: The aim of our study is to compare the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic transperitoneal partial nephrectomy (LTPN) and laparoscopic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy (LRPN) for posterior cT1 renal tumors. Methods: We retrospectively collected data on all patients who consecutively underwent LTPN and LRPN for posterior cT1 renal tumors in three different centers from January 2015 to January 2023. Patients with a single, unilateral, cT1 renal mass, located in the posterior renal surface were included. Patients' data regarding perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes were collected from medical records and statistically analyzed and compared. Results: A total of 128 patients was obtained, with 53 patients in the LPTN group and 75 patients in the LRPN group. Baseline characteristics were similar. Warm ischemia time (WIT) (18.8 vs. 22.6 min, p = 0.002) and immediate postoperative eGFR drop (-6.1 vs. -13.0 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.047) were significantly lower in the LPTN group. Estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 vs. 150 mL, p = 0.043) was significantly lower in the LRPN group. All other perioperative and functional outcomes and complications were similar between the groups. The positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was lower in the LRPN group, although without statistical significance (7.2% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.258). Surgical success defined by Trifecta (WIT ≤ 25 min, no PSM, and no major postoperative complication) was similar between both approaches. Conclusions: LTPN has significantly shorter WIT and a significantly smaller drop in immediate eGFR when compared to LRPN for posterior renal tumors. On the other hand, LRPN has significantly less EBL than LTPN. LRPN demonstrated fewer PSMs than LTPN, albeit without statistical significance. In terms of overall surgical success, as defined by Trifecta, both approaches achieved similar results.

Outcomes of Urinary Tract Endometriosis-Laparoscopic Treatment: A 10-Year Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Urinary tract endometriosis (UTE), a rare manifestation, encompasses bladder and ureteral involvement. Surgical intervention is commonly recommended for UTE, though the optimal surgical approach remains a subject of debate. This study aims to report our centre's experience with UTE. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 55 patients who underwent surgical treatment for UTE at a single tertiary centre over a 10-year period (2012-2022). Patient data, including demographics, symptoms, intraoperative findings, and complications, were collected from medical records. Data were statistically analysed, and correlations were explored. RESULTS: The study population had a mean age of 37.11 years, with dysmenorrhea (89.1%) being the most common symptom. Bladder endometriosis was present in 27 cases, ureteral endometriosis in 25, and mixed-location in 3. Laparoscopy was the primary surgical approach, with multidisciplinary teams involving urologists. There were six patients with postoperative complications, and there were six (10.9%) recurrences of endometriosis. A positive correlation was found between age and recurrence, but no significant predictors of recurrence were identified in our analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic treatment of urinary endometriosis is safe and effective. Multidisciplinary collaboration plays a pivotal role in addressing this challenging condition.

How the COVID-19 pandemic changed urology residency - a nationwide survey from the Portuguese resident's perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this article was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on urology residency. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 30 question online survey was sent to all urology residents in Portugal between the 25th of April and the 25th of May 2020. Reduction in different areas of clinical activity during the COVID-19 period were evaluated and their perceived impact on their residency program was quantified. RESULTS: Forty-three (54.4%) Portuguese urology residents responded to our inquiry. Eighty-one percent report having supressed their activity by more than 75% in the outpatient clinic; 48.8% in diagnostic procedures; 29.3% in endoscopic surgery; 67.5% in laparoscopic/robotic surgery and 17.5% in major open surgery. There were no differences in clinical activity reduction across residency years. Considering the impact of COVID-19 on urology training programs, 32.6% plan on prolonging residency. During the COVID-19 period, a larger number of residents report having spent more time developing research projects or on continuing medical education, as compared with the pre-COVID-19 period (p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a major impact on Urology residency in Portugal, with major short- and long-term consequences. A large proportion of residents are considering prolonging their residency as a result.