Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Repair of Kidney Transplant Ureteral Strictures.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of robotic assisted transplant ureteral repair (RATUR) for the management of kidney transplant ureteral strictures (TUS). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 41 consecutive patients who underwent RATUR for TUS at multiple tertiary referral centers between January 2016 and December 2022. RATUR was performed utilizing a robotic assisted transperitoneal approach. The primary outcome was stricture recurrence rate and secondary outcomes included postoperative complicate rate, determining factors impacting with allograft functional recovery, and rate of conversion to open surgery. Categorical and continuous variables are displayed as total number (Percentage) or median [Interquartile Range] respectively. Pearson correlation coefficient was utilized to assess categorical variable correlation with creatinine. RESULTS: The median age was 56 years [44, 66]. The female to male ratio was 1.1:1. Approximately 66% of patients were dialysis dependent prior to kidney transplantation. TUS was identified at a median time of 4 months [2, 15.5] following kidney transplant. Median stricture length was 2 cm [1.22, 2.9cm]. There were no TUS recurrences with a median follow-up of 36 months [24, 48]. There were 3 Clavien Grade 2 and 1 Clavien grade 3 complications (9.5%). No baseline characteristics or preoperative diagnostics were correlated with a long-term decline in renal allograft function. CONCLUSION: RATUR has excellent and durable outcomes with low complication rates. These findings encourage the use of a minimally invasive definitive repair as a first line treatment option for the management of TUS.

Are adverse events during surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia device related? A review of the MAUDE database.

PURPOSE: The Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database contains anonymous, voluntary medical device reports. A review of device-related adverse events associated with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia surgeries was completed. The objective was to evaluate the occurrence and contributing factors to clinically significant complications in a cohort of patients electing to undergo surgical intervention for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. METHODS: The Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database was queried for "Aquablation, Greenlight Laser, Holmium Laser, Morcellator, Water Vapor Thermal Therapy, Loop Resection, and Prostatic Urethral Lift" from 2018 through 2021. A complication classification system (Level I-IV) based on the Clavien-Dindo system was used to categorize events. These events were then correlated with procedural technology malfunctions and classified as "device related" and "non-device related." Chi squared analysis was performed to identify associations between procedural technology and complication classification distribution. RESULTS: A total of 873 adverse events were identified. The adverse events were classified into level I (minimal harm) versus levels II-IV (clinically significant). Aquablation (p < 0.017) and Water Vapor Thermal Therapy (p < 0.012) were associated with a higher proportion of reports with Level II-IV complications compared with other procedure types. Level II-IV complications were not associated with a reported device related malfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Aquablation and water vapor thermal therapy demonstrated noteworthy clinically significant complications which were not driven by device-related malfunctions.

The Impact of Standard vs Early Apical Release Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate Technique on Postoperative Incontinence and Quality of Life.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the difference in postoperative incontinence and quality of life comparing standard vs early apical release (EAR) Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to identify patients who underwent HoLEP from December 2021 to December 2022 at a single tertiary referral center with two participating consultant urologists. Patients were assessed with questionnaires and evaluated clinically. We performed propensity score matching with a logistic regression and a 1:1 matching method. A propensity score-adjusted logistic regression (PSRM) was performed to compare the pads per day between surgical techniques controlling for age, prostate size, preoperative survey data, uroflow, and postvoid residual. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients underwent HoLEP, of which 60 patients were treated with EAR and 54 patients with standard technique. EAR technique demonstrated shorter operative times (P = .046). The EAR cohort demonstrated improved AUASS (P = .034, P = .001), QOL (P = .001, P <.001), and continence rates (P <.001, P <.001) at 6 and 12weeks postoperatively. PSRM showed that the standard HoLEP increased the risk of requiring ≥2 pads per day 4.2x (P = .031, HR 95%, CI=1.16, 15.35) and 8.3x (P <.001, HR 95% CI 3.17, 21.6) at 6 and 12weeks postoperatively. CONCLUSION: EAR technique promoted earlier return of continence and improved quality of life within 6weeks of surgery.

Evaluation of Private Payer and Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs Associated With the Surgical Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the financial burden of various surgical interventions for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: We identified commercially insured men with a diagnosis of BPH who underwent a procedure of interest (simple prostatectomy (SP), transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), photovaporization of the prostate (PVP), prostatic urethral lift (PUL), or water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT)) between 2015 and 2021 with the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Primary outcome was total health care costs (THC) which included both patient out-of-pocket (OOP) and health plan paid costs for the index procedure and combined follow-up years 1-5. A generalized linear model was used to estimate adjusted costs controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics. Patients undergoing WVTT were excluded from extended follow-up analyses due to limited data. RESULTS: Among 25,407 patients with BPH, 10,117 (40%) underwent TURP, 6353 (25%) underwent PUL, 5411 (21%) underwent PVP, 1319 (5%) underwent SP, 1243 (5%) underwent WVTT, and 964 (4%) underwent HoLEP. Index procedure costs varied significantly with WVTT being the least costly [THC: $2637 (95% confidence interval (CI): $2513-$2761)], and SP being the costliest [THC: $14,423 (95% CI: $12,772-$16,075)]. For aggregate index and 5-year follow-up costs, HoLEP ($31,926 [95% CI: $29,704-$34,148]) was the least costly and PUL ($36,596 [95% CI: $35,369-37,823]) was the costliest. CONCLUSION: BPH surgical treatment is associated with significant system-level health care costs. The level of impact varies between procedures. Minimally invasive options, such as WVTT, may offer initial cost reductions; however, HoLEP and SP are associated with lower follow-up costs.

Neuromuscular Paralysis is not a Barrier to Same Day Catheter Removal After HoLEP.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if same day catheter removal is feasible in a population of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate patients who received paralysis and if bladder pressure monitoring could predict successful catheter removal. METHODS: From February 2021 to February 2022, we evaluated same day catheter removal for patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. Criteria for proceeding with same day catheter removal included: an uncomplicated procedure, continuous bladder irrigation weaned within 120 minutes of arrival to PACU, minimal postoperative hematuria and a bladder pressure over 30 cmH20 as measured using the VP Test device (SRS Medical). RESULTS: One hundred and eight patients were enrolled, with a median age of 68 years (IQR: 62.0-73.0) and prostate volume 80.8cc (IQR: 64.8-112.3). Criteria for catheter removal was met by 83/108 (76.9%) patients. Of those that attempted a trial of void, 69/83 passed for an effective pass rate of 83.1%. Median maximum detrusor pressure for those that passed and failed were 51.0 cmH20 (IQR: 40.5 -68.0) and 48.0 cmH20 (IQR: 38.8-61.8) [P = .53], respectively. Intraoperative Lasix administration was associated with a higher rate of trial of void (TOV) success and preoperative PVR was associated with lower TOV success, with OR (95%CI) of 5.8 (1.4, 29.5) [P = .02] and 0.6 (0.4, 0.9) [P = .01], respectively. CONCLUSION: Same day catheter removal is feasible in those who receive neuromuscular paralysis, with a success rate >80%. Bladder pressure monitoring did not assist with differentiating which patients will pass or fail a trial of void. Intraoperative Lasix administration may be helpful in increasing success for same day catheter removal while elevated preoperative PVR was associated with TOV failure.

Toxicity and outcomes after external beam irradiation for prostate cancer in patients with prior holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: Early experience.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is commonly performed in patients with significant bladder outlet obstruction. However, there are few reports on the toxicity of external beam irradiation (RT) for prostate cancer in patients after prior HoLEP. In this study, we evaluate the side effects and treatment outcomes of RT after HoLEP. MATERIALS/METHODS: Eighteen patients who had HoLEP and subsequently received RT for prostate cancer were included. Data collected included patient and disease characteristics, urinary function, and radiation dose. Acute and late urinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) side effects were evaluated. Disease control and survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 18 months (range: 4-46 months). Median prostate volume was 107 ml before HoLEP and 24 ml after HoLEP. Median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 17 (range: 5-32) before HoLEP. Median decline in IPSS score after HoLEP was 7 (range: -2-21). On uroflow study, peak flow rate, and post-void residual were significantly improved after HoLEP. After radiation, peak flow rate and average flow rate showed a decline but remained significantly improved compared to pre-HoLEP measurements. Maximum acute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) adverse events were 12 grade 1 and 3 grade 2 for GU, and 3 grade 1 for GI, respectively. Maximum late adverse events were 13 grade 1 and 2 grade 2 for GU, and all grade 0 for GI, respectively. At last follow-up, there were 8 grade 1 and 1 grade 2 late GU, and 3 grade 1 late GI adverse events, respectively. There was no significant increase in urinary incontinence after RT compared to before RT. The 18-month biochemical control, local control, distant control rates were 78%, 94%, and 80%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received RT as definitive treatment for prostate cancer after prior HoLEP had low risk of serious acute and late side effects. HoLEP can be safely performed and should be considered in patients with significant bladder outlet obstruction and large prostate volume before RT.

Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Surgical Treatment Options for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions for BPH. METHODS: Using a Markov model, a cost-utility analysis was performed comparing HoLEP, B-TURP, WVTT, and PUL for prostate size <80cc (index patient 1) and HoLEP and SP for prostate size >80cc (index patient 2). Model probabilities and utility values were drawn from the literature. Analysis was performed at a 5-year time horizon with extrapolation to a lifetime horizon. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), 2021 Medicare costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: At 5 years, costs per patient for index patient 1 were $3292 (WVTT), $6532 (HoLEP), $6670 (B-TURP), and $10,257 (PUL). HoLEP resulted in the highest QALYs (4.66), followed by B-TURP (4.60), PUL (4.38), and WVTT (4.38). This translated to HoLEP being most cost-effective (ICER $11,847). For index patient 2, HoLEP was less costly ($6,585 vs $15,404) and more effective (4.654 vs 4.650) relative to SP. On sensitivity analysis for index patient 1, B-TURP became most cost-effective if cost of HoLEP increased two-fold or chronic stress incontinence following HoLEP increased ten-fold. When follow-up time was varied, WVTT was preferred at very short follow up (<1 year), and HoLEP became more strongly preferred with longer follow up. CONCLUSION: At 5 years follow up, HoLEP is a cost-effective surgical treatment for BPH- independent of gland size.

Median lobe vs. complete gland holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: A propensity score matching.

INTRODUCTION: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition affecting aging men. While holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is one of the most effective treatments for BPH, variations of the procedure, such as median lobe HoLEP (MLHoLEP), are rarely reported. Here, we report our institution's experience with partial HoLEP. METHODS: Our institutional prospective database was queried for patients having undergone median or individual lateral lobe enucleation between 2007 and 2018. A control cohort of patients who underwent standard HoLEP (sHoLEP) was identified using 1:2 propensity score matching based on age, prostate size, maximal flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual volume (PVR), and American Urological Association symptom score (AUAss). Three and 12-month AUAss, PVR, and Qmax were compared. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were identified as having undergone MLHoLEP. At three-month followup, AUAss (p<0.01) and incontinence rates (p=0.045) were lower for MLHoLEP patients, in addition to them having shorter operative (36.5 mins vs. 64.5 mins, p<0.01) and enucleation (13.8 mins vs. 37 mins, p<0.01) times as compared to sHoLEP patients. No difference was noted between MLHoLEP and sHoLEP cohorts with respect to age, prostate volume, PVR, or Qmax. Significant improvement in AUAss, PVR, and Q max from baseline to three and 12 months was noted overall in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: MLHoLEP could provide a surgical option with reduced operative time, quicker improvement in AUAss, and restored continence in appropriately selected patients. Ultimately, MLHoLEP represents a safe and effective treatment option to select patients who may not be eligible for or face potential morbidity concerns associated with sHoLEP.

Salvage versus primary holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: trends, outcomes and safety analysis.

PURPOSE: To study the safety, efficacy and trends in index procedures leading to salvage holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (S-HoLEP). METHODS: This was a single-institution retrospective review of HoLEPs performed between 2006 and 2020. Patients who underwent S-HoLEP were compared to those undergoing primary holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (P-HoLEP). The endpoint of primary interest were functional outcomes. Changes in index procedures over the study period were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 633 HoLEPs were performed during the study, with 217 being S-HoLEP. The S-HoLEP cohort was older than P-HoLEP cohort, 71.2 years vs 68.8 years (p = 0.03). All other factors were well matched. The most common index procedures prior to S-HoLEP included transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (87, 40.1%), transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) (44, 20.3%), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) (24, 11.1%) and prostatic urethral lift (PUL) (24, 11.1%). Preoperative prostate volume, IPSS and Qmax were similar between groups. Intra-operatively, S-HoLEP had longer procedure and morcellation times (p = 0.01 and 0.007). Postoperatively, the S-HoLEP cohort had longer catheter duration and hospitalization (both p < 0.001). Postoperative Qmax, IPSS and 90-day complication rates were similar. On temporal analysis, minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST) have become more prevalent as index procedures. CONCLUSION: S-HoLEP is safe and efficacious for patients requiring additional BPH surgical intervention. S-HoLEP patients had longer operative times and hospital stays but equivalent postoperative functional outcomes compared to P-HoLEP. As MIST mature and gain traction, it is expected that rates of S-HoLEP will continue to rise.

Travel characteristics and outcomes for patients seeking HoLEP.

INTRODUCTION: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is an effective but underutilized option for the surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). With low adoption, questions arise surrounding patients access to care. It is unclear whether patients undergoing HoLEP are local or specifically seek care from afar. We looked to determine the proportion of patients who traveled out-of-state for HoLEP treatment and the impact of travel on peri and postoperative metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients that underwent HoLEP at a single institution from 2007-2019. Patient demographic, perioperative data, postoperative outcomes, travel distance and income data were compared between those who traveled and did not travel out-of-state for care. RESULTS: From 2007-2019, 1565 patients underwent HoLEP at our institution. The mean age was 70.0 years, average body mass index (BMI) of 27.9 kg/m2, and 91.6% identified as Caucasian; 44.2% of patients traveled from out-of-state for HoLEP care, traveling a median of 597 miles. Patients who came from out-of-state had larger prostates (p = 0.005) and worse preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) total and bother scores (p = 0.002). There was no difference in immediate, 30 or 90 day complications rates. In- and out-of-state patients had similar postoperative urinary and functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients specifically seek out HoLEP and travel out-of-state for care. The reasons are likely multifactorial -including advanced disease, lack of local care and healthcare consumerism. These results have implications both for those currently providing HoLEP as a treatment option as well as those motivated to start a HoLEP practice.

Single Incision Robotic Cystectomy and Hybrid Orthotopic Neobladder Reconstruction: A Step by Step Description.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a new technique for single incision robotic cystectomy and Studer-type ileal neobladder using the single-port (SP) da Vinci SP robotic platform. METHODS: In April 2021, a 71 year-old patient underwent a single incision robotic cystectomy and orthotopic Studer-type ileal neobladder using the single-port da Vinci SP robotic platform for cT2, cN0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. He was not a candidate for neoadjuvant cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy and declined participation in a clinical trial. RESULTS: Total operative time was 554 minutes and estimated blood loss was 250 cc. He was discharged on postoperative day six without developing any Clavien complications. He underwent adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive disease and follow-up through June 2021 was notable for the absence of any significant complications or readmissions. We provide a comprehensive discussion of the required instrumentation, a description of the technique with illustrations, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this technology as it pertains to cystectomy and urinary diversion. CONCLUSION: We make no claim regarding the superiority of this technique over others, only that it is technically feasible and that the approach holds promise.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for very large benign prostatic hyperplasia (≥ 200 cc).

PURPOSE: Patients presenting with prostate gland sizes greater than 200 cc pose a unique surgical challenge to both patients and surgeons. The objective of this study is to critically assess the efficacy and risks associated with performing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) on glands ≥ 200 cc. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a prospective maintained database, all consecutive benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients with gland size ≥ 200 cc who underwent HoLEP were included. We reported patient preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative outcomes and complications. Subgroup analysis of outcomes was stratified by gland sizes 200-299 cc and ≥ 300 cc. Univariate analysis using Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher exact test was performed to compare the two groups. RESULTS: There were 88 patients with a mean preoperative gland size of 255.9 cc (200-770 cc). Mean operative (171 vs 182 min) and enucleation time (77 vs 83 min) were not different between the two subgroups (200-299 cc vs ≥ 300 cc). Enucleation efficiency was greater for glands ≥ 300 cc (2.6 cc/min vs 2.0 cc/min, p = 0.04). Morcellation time was longer in the ≥ 300 cc group (74.5 min vs 46.8 min, p = 0.021). Mean length of stay was 1.8 ± 1.2 days and catheter duration was 2.6 ± 2.7 days. 1 (1.1%) patient required retreatment of BPH at last follow-up. The main limitation of this study is the retrospective data analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Holmium laser enucleation for prostate glands volume > 200 cc is feasible with minimal morbidity. These data further reinforce the size independence success of this procedure for BPH.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate using Moses 2.0 vs non-Moses: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the enucleation efficiency of Moses 2.0 with non-Moses technology in patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A double-blinded, randomised study of patients undergoing HoLEP at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, using the Lumenis Pulse™ 120H laser system. Patients were randomised to either right lobe enucleation using Moses 2.0 and left lobe enucleation using non-Moses, or the opposite. The primary outcome was individual lobe enucleation efficiency. Secondary outcomes included individual lobe laser time, laser energy, individual enucleation and haemostasis laser energies, and fibre burn back. Two independent reviewers watched videos of the procedures and provided a subjective evaluation of the technologies. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients were included in the study. For the entire cohort, Moses 2.0 had less fibre degradation (3.5 vs 16.8 mm, P < 0.01) compared to non-Moses. When HoLEP procedures were performed by an expert, Moses 2.0 resulted in shorter enucleation time (21 vs 36.7 min, P = 0.016) and higher enucleation efficiency (1.75 vs 1.05 g/min, P = 0.05) compared to non-Moses. When HoLEP was performed by trainees, the Moses 2.0 cohort had a shorter haemostasis laser time (4.1 vs 9 min, P = 0.035) compared to the non-Moses. Fibre degradation was lower with Moses 2.0 compared to non-Moses for both experts and trainees. Moses 2.0 received a higher score than the standard technology for the incision sharpness, fibre control, tissue separation, tissue damage, haemostasis, visibility, and charring. The overall inter-observer correlation coefficient was 0.63. CONCLUSION: Moses 2.0 has higher enucleation efficiency compared to non-Moses when used by experts. The subjective evaluation favoured Moses 2.0.

Does bladder stone composition predict kidney stone composition?

INTRODUCTION Bladder stones have historically been associated with urinary stasis secondary to bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). Recent studies indicate that the role of BOO in bladder stone formation is minor. We evaluate the role of urinary lithogenic factors in bladder stone formation by comparing the compositions of bladder stones and kidney stones in patients with multi-site urinary calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients who were treated for concomitant bladder stones and kidney stones between 2008-2019, and had both stone compositions available. Patients with bladder stone size < 10 mm, urinary foreign bodies, encrusted stents or tumors were excluded. Data regarding urinary symptoms, residual volumes, stone composition and 24-hours urine data were collected. RESULTS: We identified 40 males with a median age of 72 years (IQR 6-14), median residual volume of 76 mL (IQR 41-200), and a median prostate volume of 52 mL (IQR 32-102). Bladder outlet procedures were performed concomitantly with cystolitholapaxy in 21 (53%) patients. The most common bladder stone and kidney stone compositions were CaOx (47.5% and 65%), uric acid (32.5% and 22.5%), calcium phosphate (15% and 10%), and struvite (5% and 2.5%), respectively. Bladder stone and kidney stone compositions were identical in 70% of patients. Bladder stone composition was predictive of kidney stone composition, regardless of the PVR, bladder stone size, or whether an outlet procedure was performed. CONCLUSION: We found a high concordance between bladder stone and kidney stone composition, suggesting that metabolic abnormalities have a significant role in bladder stone formation. Bladder stone composition can be used to guide surgical and medical treatment for kidney stones in metabolically active stone patients.

The Clinical Implication of Incidental Prostatic Amyloidosis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinicopathologic features of patients with incidental prostatic amyloidosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We queried the genitourinary pathology database at Mayo Clinic Arizona for prostate specimens which showed amyloid deposits. Congo red stain was used for the diagnosis of amyloidosis and amyloid subtype was performed analysis using Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. We reviewed the patient's medical charts for past or subsequent diagnosis of systemic amyloidosis and clinical course. RESULTS: Prostatic amyloidosis was identified in 7 patients between 2008-2018. Median age was 79 years (range 69-84) and median follow-up was 5 years (range 0-11). Benign prostate tissue was found in 4 patients, and prostate cancer was diagnosed in 3 patients. Amyloid subtyping was available in 6 patients and was consistent with Amyloid transthyretin Amyloidosis. Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry did not detect an amino acid sequence abnormality in the transthyretin protein in any of the patients. Five of 6 patients were diagnosed with cardiac amyloidosis, which preceded and followed the diagnosis of prostatic amyloidosis in 1 and 4 patients, respectively. Of these 4 patients, 2 were diagnosed immediately and as a consequence of the diagnosis of prostatic amyloidosis, and the remaining 2 3 and 4 years later. CONCLUSION: Incidental prostatic amyloidosis should prompt systemic and cardiac evaluation for amyloidosis. In patients with suspected cardiac amyloidosis, prior prostate specimens should be reviewed for the presence of amyloidosis.

Feasibility of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate as a 1-day surgery.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and feasibility of HoLEP as a day-case procedure. METHODS: We reviewed all consecutive patients who underwent HoLEP at our institution between February 2017 and March 2018. During this time, we began a prospective trial aimed at same-day discharge of specific patients. Baseline and demographic variables, and past medical, past urological, intra-operative and post-operative variables in addition to disposition and readmission data were collected. Bivariate analysis was conducted to compare patients based on the day of discharge and readmission. A multivariable model using multiple-regression analysis was used to assess predictors for early discharge or readmission. RESULTS: There were 179 total HoLEP procedures that were performed during the study period. Forty-seven patients were suitable candidates for same-day discharge. Among this group, 28 (59.5%) patients were successfully discharged home on the same day. Nineteen patients (40.4%) could not be discharged. The most common cause of not to discharge patients was the degree of hematuria without continuous bladder irrigation. Pre-operative prostate volume was different between the two groups (88.4 ± 30.7 cc for discharged patients vs 69.0 ± 30.7 cc for admitted patients, p = 0.033). No other pre-operative differences were identified. There were five readmissions (17.8%) following same-day discharge. Readmitted patients had higher rates of history of urinary tract infection (80% vs 26.2%, p = 0.0304). On multivariable analysis, no statistically significant predictors were identified for early discharge or readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Same-day discharge following HoLEP is safe and feasible in well-selected patients.

Robot Assisted Radical Cystectomy vs Open Radical Cystectomy: Over 10 years of the Mayo Clinic Experience.

OBJECTIVES: There is scant information about intermediate / long-term comparative outcomes between robot assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and open radical cystectomy (ORC). The purpose of this study is to present survival and oncological outcomes between bladder cancer patients who undergo RARC vs. ORC with an overall median follow-up of over 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A query of all patients who underwent radical cystectomy between January, 2007 and January, 2018 at Mayo Clinic Arizona yielded 595 patients. After excluding cystectomy performed for nonmalignant indication, cancer secondary to nonbladder primary, and cancers with grossly metastatic disease at the time of surgery, 481 patients remained. Data was collected on patient demographics, preoperative information, operative details, complications, and follow-up. Statistical analyses were generated using SPSS 22.0. RESULTS: In 481 total patients, 203 (42.2%) underwent RARC and 278 (57.8%) underwent ORC. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 66 months. The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 70.8% vs. 64.7% and the 10-year RFS was 69.6% vs. 62.7% for the RARC vs. ORC, respectively (P = 0.135). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 58.9% vs. 57.7% and the 10-year OS was 39.9% vs. 45.6% for RARC vs. ORC patients, respectively (P = 0.466). There were no differences in any recurrence patterns, including the incidence of atypical recurrences (1.5% vs. 1.8% [P = 0.786], respectively). A Cox-proportional hazards model was fitted that included independent predictors of RFS and OS. The results revealed no difference in RFS (HR 1.235, 95% CI: 0.832-1.833, P = 0.295) or OS (HR 0.790, 95% CI: 0.550-1.135, P = 0.202) between the respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence free survival, OS, and recurrence patterns are similar in bladder cancer patients who undergo either RARC or ORC.

Role of robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in malignant mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis: case series and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The management of malignant mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis (MMTVT) is not clearly defined. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection has been reported as a potential management option. Herein we present our experience with robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RARPLND) in our series of patients with MMTVT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Mayo Clinic cancer registry was queried from 1972-present for all patients who had a diagnosis of MMTVT. Six patients were identified, five of whom were treated with RPLND, where four underwent RARPLND. RESULTS: In five patients who underwent RPLND, the median age was 50 years (IQR 34-51). Four patients originally presented with right sided symptomatic hydroceles, while one presented with right sided chronic epididymitis. Orchiectomy (one simple, two inguinal radical) was performed in three patients prior to presentation. Preoperative cross-sectional imaging, including PET-CT scan in three patients, was negative for lymphadenopathy or metastasis. RARPLND was performed in 4/5 (80%) cases and concomitant hemiscrotectomy in 4/5 (80%) cases. Full bilateral template was performed in three patients and right modified template was performed in the remaining two. Median lymph node yield was 29 (IQR 22-32) and median blood loss was 275 cc (IQR 200-300). Positive retroperitoneal lymph nodes were found in 3/5 (60%) cases. All patients who underwent RARPLND were discharged home on postoperative day one. Mean follow up was 27 months (range 3-47). No patients recurred. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the approach, RPLND may provide a diagnostic benefit in patients who present with MMTVT, with the robotic approach affording a potentially expedited recovery.