Predictive factors of urinary incontinence after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a multicentric evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate predictive factors of urinary incontinence (UI) after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). METHODS: Patients (n = 2346) were included in a retrospective multicentric study from April 2012 to November 2017. Patients' characteristics (age, BMI, percentage with diabetes), preoperative data (IPSS score, whole gland volume, urinary drainage), operative data (enucleation time, enucleation efficiency, tissue enucleated weight, total delivered energy) and postoperative data were recorded. Absence of UI was defined as no pads at 3 and 6 months. Surgeon experience was stratified in three categories: beginners (< 21 cases), intermediate (21-40 cases) and experienced (> 40 cases). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: UI was observed in 14.5% of patients (340/2346) at 3 months (95%CI 13-16%) and in 4.2% (98/2346) at 6 months (95%CI 3-5%). On multivariate analysis at 3 months, increasing age (OR per SD = 1.3 [1.14-1.48]), elevated BMI (OR per SD = 1.23 [1.09-1.38]), preoperative urinary drainage (OR = 0.62 [0.45-0.85]), increasing enucleated tissue weight (OR per SD = 1.29 [1.16-1.45]) and experienced surgeon with at least 40 cases (OR = 0.56 [0.42-0.75]) were significantly associated with UI. At 6 months, increasing age (OR per SD = 1.25 [1.01-1.53]), elevated BMI (OR per SD = 1.25 [1.03-1.5]), increasing whole gland volume (OR per one SD log = 1.24 [1.01-1.53]) and diabetes disorder (OR = 1.7 [1.03-2.78]) were significantly associated with UI. CONCLUSION: UI after HoLEP was observed in 14.5% of patients at 3 months and 4.2% at 6 months, with stress UI in half of the cases. Surgeon experience with at least 40 cases was the main predictive factor of 3 months UI after HoLEP and diabetes disorder of persistent UI at 6 months.

Day of surgery admission in urology: Patient criteria and the organization required for same-day admission in urology: A retrospective study.

Background: The day of surgery admission (DOSA) has been practiced in surgery for decades, with reports dating as far back as 1909. DOSA policy has potential benefits for the health system and the patient, especially when there is a shortage of health-care resources. Objective: This study aims to compare DOSA and standard prior admission (D-1) among patients who underwent major urological operations. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled a total of 206 patients who did not meet the criteria for day care surgery admission. The patients were divided into two groups: those admitted on the same day of surgery and those admitted the day before surgery. Among the participants, 111 (53.8%) were admitted on the same day, while 95 (46.2%) were admitted the day before surgery. We collected data from the electronic health records of these patients, documenting various variables, including patient demographics, type of surgery, admission type and date, intervention date, length of stay, complications, Clavien-Dindo score, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score. Results: We included a total of 206 patients who were admitted for operations in the urology department. The mean age was 70.5 years, and the majority was males (83.5%). Endoscopic procedures were the most common interventions (68%). The most ASA score for the enrolled patients was 2 (56.2%). DOSA was done for 53.8% of the patients, whereas the remaining patients were admitted 1 day before elective surgery. DOSA patients were significantly younger (P = 0.025), had a higher proportion of ASA score 1 (12.7%) and ASA score 3 (26.4%), had significantly fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.002), and had statistically significantly a shorter length of stay (P < 0.001) compared to D-1 admission patients. Conclusion: In our study, DOSA patients were younger, had a lower prevalence of comorbidities, utilized anticoagulants less frequently, experienced fewer complications, and had significantly shorter hospital stays. Since the DOSA policy is safe and has a lower financial and economic burden on the health-care system, we recommend more urological and surgical centers to implement it.

The Challenges of Patient Selection for Prostate Cancer Focal Therapy: A Retrospective Observational Multicentre Study.

Increased diagnoses of silent prostate cancer (PCa) have led to overtreatment and consequent functional side effects. Focal therapy (FT) applies energy to a prostatic index lesion treating only the clinically significant PCa focus. We analysed the potential predictive factors of FT failure. We collected data from patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in two high-volume hospitals from January 2017 to January 2020. The inclusion criteria were: one MRI-detected lesion with a Gleason Score (GS) of ≤7, ≤cT2a, PSA of ≤10 ng/mL, and GS 6 on a random biopsy with ≤2 positive foci out of 12. Potential oncological safety of FT was defined as the respect of clinicopathological inclusion criteria on histology specimens, no extracapsular extension, and no biochemical, local, or metastatic recurrence within 12 months. To predict FT failure, we performed uni- and multivariate logistic regression. Sixty-seven patients were enrolled. The MRI index lesion median size was 11 mm; target lesions were ISUP grade 1 in 27 patients and ISUP grade 2 in 40. Potential FT failure occurred in 32 patients, and only the PSA value resulted as a predictive parameter (p < 0.05). The main issue for FT is patient selection, mainly because of multifocal csPCa foci. Nevertheless, FT could represent a therapeutic alternative for highly selected low-risk PCa patients.

Renal Oncocytoma: An Algorithm for Diagnosis and Management.

Renal oncocytoma is an uncommon tumor that exhibits numerous features which are characteristic but not necessarily unique. Percutaneous biopsy is a safe method of diagnosis. However, differentiation from other tumor subtypes often requires sophisticated analysis and is not universally feasible. This is why, surgical management can be considered as a first-line treatment or after surveillance. Potential triggers for change in management are: tumor size >3 cm, stage progression, kinetics of size progression (>5 mm/y), and clinical change in patient or tumor factors. Long-term follow-up data are lacking and greater centralization should be considered to reach adequate management.