Radical Prostatectomy on YouTube: Education or Disinformation?

BACKGROUND: YouTube is the second most popular website worldwide. It features numerous videos about radical prostatectomy. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of these videos and screen their benefit for patients and doctors. METHODS: All videos on YouTube about radical prostatectomy were analysed using a specially developed software (python 2.7, numpy). According to a predefined selection process most relevant videos were analyzed for quality and reliability using Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM)-Score, Global Quality Score and others. RESULTS: Out of 3520 search results, 179 videos were selected and analysed. Videos were watched a median of 5836 times (interquartile range (IQR): 11945.5; 18-721546). The median duration was 7.2 minutes (min). 125 of the videos were about robotic prostatectomy. 69 videos each were directly addressed to patients and doctors. Medical content generally was of low quality, while technical quality and total quality were at a high level. Reliability was good. CONCLUSIONS: Videos on radical prostatectomy on YouTube allow for patient information. While technical quality and reliability are classified as acceptable, medical content was low and warranted preselection. In contrast to Loeb et al. we did not observe a negative correlation between number of views and scientific quality in different scores. Our findings support the need for preselection of videos on YouTube as the potential benefit may vary between videos with the significant risk of low medical quality.

Robot-assisted vs open adrenalectomy: evaluation of cost-effectiveness and peri-operative outcome.

OBJECTIVES: To compare robot-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy (RALA) and open adrenalectomy (OA) with regard to intra-operative complications, peri-operative outcome and cost effectiveness. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Functional and statistical data from patients who underwent OA or RALA between 2001 and 2015 were prospectively recorded including intra- and postoperative outcomes. Data on per-day costs from current census reports (€540/day and €1 145/day for normal and intermediate care [IMC]) were also used to evaluate treatment costs. Additional costs for RALA were assumed at €2288 as reported in the current literature. Patients were matched by American Society of Anesthesiologists score, age, side of surgery and gender for comparison of OA and RALA. A total of 28 matched pairs were analysed with regard to patient characteristics, peri-operative outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Statistical significance of outcome variables was determined using Student's t-test and Pearson's chi-squared test. RESULTS: As a result of the matching process, patient groups did not differ in their main characteristics. Length of hospital stay was shorter for RALA than for OA (11.1 ± 4.8 vs 6.8 ± 1.2 days; P < 0.01) as was IMC treatment (2.3 ± 1.7 vs 1.2 ± 0.4 days; P < 0.01). The mean operating time was longer for RALA (128.5 ± 46.5 vs 102.2 ± 44.5 min; P = 0.03), but the last 10 RALA procedures (mean: 97.1 ± 35.2 min) were similar to OA. The rate of complications was similar in the two groups. Estimated costs were €8 627.5 for OA and €7 334 for RALA. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that RALA was safe and cost-effective compared with OA. Increasing experience leads to similar operating times, putting high-volume centres at an advantage.