Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic surgery (RS) is experiencing major development, particularly in the context of rectal cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize data from the literature, focusing specifically on the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgery in mid-low rectal cancers, based on the hypothesis that that robotic surgery can find its most rational indication in this anatomical location. METHOD: The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA 2000 recommendations, including all randomized trials that compared robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery (LS) that were found in the Medline-PICO, Cochrane Database, Scopus and Google databases. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane Handbook method and the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE method. The analysis was carried out with R software Version 4.2-3 using the Package for Meta-Analysis "meta" version 6.5-0. RESULTS: Eight randomized trials were included (with a total of 2342 patients), including four that focused specifically on mid-low rectal cancer (n=1,734 patients). No statistically significant difference was found for overall morbidity, intra-operative morbidity, anastomotic leakage, post-operative mortality, quality of mesorectal specimen, and resection margins. The main differences identified were a lower conversion rate for RS (RR=0.48 [0.24-0.95], p=0.04, I2=0%), and a longer operative time for RS (mean difference=39.11min [9.39-68.83], p<0.01, I2=96%). The other differences had no real clinical relevance, i.e., resumption of flatus passage (5hours earlier after RS), and lymph node dissection (one more lymph node for LS). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis does not confirm the initial hypothesis and does not show a statistically significant or clinically relevant benefit of RS compared to LS for mid-low rectal cancer.

The habits of European urologists in the field of cryopreservation before the urological cancers treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Treatments against urogenital cancers frequently have fertility side-effects. The strategy to preserve fertility after oncologic treatments is still a matter of debate with a lack of evidence and international guidelines. The aim of this study is to investigate fertility preservation practices before urogenital cancer treatments and to compare national habits. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An online anonymous survey was submitted from January to June 2021 to six European urological societies. The 31-items questionnaire included questions about demography, habits of evaluation, and management of fertility preservation in case of urogenital cancer treatments. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-eight urologists from six urological societies in five different countries (Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Finland) filled out the survey. Three quarter (74%; n = 166) usually propose a cryopreservation before orchidectomy. In case of oligo/azoo-spermia, the technique performed for the sperm extraction during orchidectomy varies among the sample: 70.5% (n = 160) of the responders do not perform a Testicular Sperm Extraction (TESE) nor a Percutaneous Epididymal Sperm Aspiration (PESA). The cryopreservation for prostate cancer treatments is never proposed in 48.17% (n = 105) of responders but conversely it is always proposed in 5.05% (n = 11). The cryopreservation before bladder cancer treatments is not commonly proposed (67.5%, n = 154). CONCLUSION: Our study showed variable country specific tendencies in terms of fertility preservation in the period of treatment of urological cancers. These differences seem to be related to national guidelines recommendations. Standardization of international guidelines is urgently needed in the field of fertility for urological cancer patients.

European countries have different rates of sperm cryopreservation before vasectomy and at the time of reversal.

INTRODUCTION: Effective male contraceptive options are condoms and vasectomy. Vasectomy should not be considered a reversible method of contraception even if vasovasostomy can be offered to men to restore fertility after vasectomy. Therefore, there is a real questioning among urologists concerning cryopreservation before vasectomy. We carried out an international survey concerning the practice of cryopreservation before vasectomy and during vasovasostomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An online anonymous survey was submitted from January to June 2021 to six European urological societies. The 31-items questionnaire included questions about demography, habits of cryopreservation before vasectomy or during vasectomy reversal, and in case of urogenital cancers. RESULTS: 228 urologists from six urological societies in five different countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Finland) answered the questionnaire. French urologists were more in favor of cryopreservation before vasectomy than other European urologists (p < 0.0001). They also significantly found that not talking about cryopreservation before vasectomy is a medical fault unlike other urologists (p < 0.0001). The specialization in andrology did not influence the choice of cryopreservation before vasectomy (p = 0.9452). The majority of urologists did not perform intraoperative sperm extraction during vasovasostomy (81%; n = 127) with a significant difference between urologists with or without andrology training (p = 0.0146). Success rates after vasovasostomy are significantly better for robot-assisted surgery (p = 0.0159) or with a microscope (p = 0.0456) versus without a microscope. CONCLUSION: Cryopreservation before definitive sterilization significantly varies among European urologists and seems to be mostly dictated by habits than by knowledge. An international consensus is needed to standardize practices and guide patients' choices.

Solitary prostate cancer liver metastasis: an exceptional indication for liver resection.

INTRODUCTION: Prostatic cancer metastases (PCM) are usually systemic. Isolated PCM liver metastases (PCLM) are very rare. The treatment of PCM consists of hormono- and chemotherapy eventually combined with stereotactic radiation. PATIENT AND DISCUSSION: A case of a 67-year old man presenting with a solitary, metachronous PCLM undergoing a left extended hepatectomy due to resistance to hormono- and chemotherapy is reported. He died of recurrent systemic disease 31 months later. CONCLUSIONS: The very rare indication and possible role of liver resection in the treatment of PCLM is discussed.

Strategies for liver transplantation during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak: Preliminary experience from a single center in France.

Liver transplantation (LT) during the ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is challenging given the urgent need to reallocate resources to other areas of patient care. Available guidelines recommend reorganizing transplant care, but data on clinical experience in the context of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are scarce. Thus, we report strategies and preliminary results in LT during the peak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from a single center in France. Our strategy to reorganize the transplant program included 4 main steps: optimization of available resources, especially intensive care unit capacity; multidisciplinary risk stratification of LT candidates on the waiting list; implementation of a systematic SARS-CoV-2 screening strategy prior to transplantation; and definition of optimal recipient-donor matching. After implementation of these 4 steps, we performed 10 successful LTs during the peak of the pandemic with a short median intensive care unit stay (2.5 days), benchmark posttransplant morbidity, and no occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during follow-up. From this preliminary experience we conclude that efforts in resource planning, optimal recipient selection, and organ allocation strategy are key to maintain a safe LT activity. Transplant centers should be ready to readapt their practices as the pandemic evolves.