METHODS: Urology residents and specialists were invited to test the training model. They were asked to complete a pre-task questionnaire, to perform piecemeal and en bloc resection of 'bladder tumours' within the training model, and to complete a post-task questionnaire afterwards. Their performances were assessed by faculty members of the AUSTEG. For the face validity, a pre-task questionnaire consisting of six statements on TURBT and the training model were set. For the content validity, a post-task questionnaire consisting of 14 items on the details of the training model were set. For the construct validity, a Global Rating Scale was used to assess the participants' performances. The participants were stratified into two groups (junior surgeons and senior surgeons groups) according to their duration of urology training.
RESULTS: For the pre-task questionnaire, a mean score of ≥ 4.0 out of 5.0 was achieved in 5 out of 6 statements. For the post-task questionnaire, a mean score of ≥ 4.5 out of 5.0 was achieved in every item. For the Global Rating Scale, the senior surgeons group had higher scores than the junior surgeons group in 8 out of 11 items as well as the total score.
CONCLUSION: A porcine TURBT training model has been developed, and its face, content and construct validity has been established.
METHODS: A total of 131 consecutive patients exhibiting NMIBC at primary diagnosis were retrospectively investigated whether they had undergone any HAL-guided TURBT prior to RC. Uni- and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate the impact of HAL-TURBT on cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). The median follow-up was 38 months (IQR 13-56).
RESULTS: Of the 131 patients, 69 (52.7%) were managed with HAL- and 62 (47.3%) with white light (WL)-TURBT only prior to RC. HAL-TURBT was associated with a higher number of TURBTs prior to RC (p = 0.002) and administration of intravesical chemotherapy (p = 0.043). A trend towards a higher rate of tumor-associated immune cell infiltrates in RC specimens (p = 0.07) and a lower utilization rate of post-operative systemic chemotherapy (p = 0.10) was noted for patients who were treated with HAL-TURBT. The 5-year CSS/OS was 90.9%/74.5% for the HAL-group and 73.8%/55.8% for the WL-group (p = 0.042/0.038). In multivariable analysis, lymph node tumor involvement (p = 0.007), positive surgical margins (p = 0.001) and performance of WL-TURBT only (p = 0.040) were independent predictors for cancer-specific death.
CONCLUSIONS: The present data suggest that the resection of NMIBC under HAL exerts a beneficial impact on outcomes of patients who will need to undergo RC during their course of disease. This finding may be due to improved risk stratification as the resection under HAL may allow more patients to be treated timely and adequately.
METHOD: Between April 2013 and February 2016, 577 patients undergoing TPB had 2 g of cephazolin given intravenously at induction of anaesthesia. Data collected from these patients included age, PSA, prostate volume, number of cores taken and post-operative complications.
RESULTS: No patients were readmitted to hospital with infection post-TPB. Seven patients developed acute urinary retention, and one patient developed clinical prostatitis that was treated with oral antibiotics in the community.
CONCLUSION: It is safe to use single-dose cephazolin only as antibiotic prophylaxis prior to TPB, negating the need for quinolones. This study supports Australia's current Therapeutic Guidelines recommendation for TPB prophylaxis and the existing evidence that sepsis post-TPB is a rare complication. Whether any antibiotic prophylaxis is needed at all for TPB is the subject of a future study.
METHOD: The protocol of this review is registered on PROSPERO(CRD42020190882). A comprehensive literature search was performed on Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL using MeSH terms and keywords for randomised controlled trials and observational studies on the topic. Risks of biases were assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For localised RCC, immediate surgery [including partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN)] and delayed surgery [including active surveillance (AS) and delayed intervention (DI)] were compared. For metastatic RCC, upfront versus deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) were compared.
RESULTS: Eleven studies were included for quantitative analysis. Delayed surgery was significantly associated with worse cancer-specific survival (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.23-2.27, p
METHODS: Data from 20 centers were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were adult patients, normal renal anatomy, and LPS. Exclusion criteria were bilateral surgery, concomitant surgery for ureteral stones. SFR was defined as a single residual fragment (RF) ≤ 2 mm and evaluated 3-months after surgery. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with RF. Statistical significance was set at p value
METHODS: Inclusion criteria: age ≥ 18 years, normal renal/calyceal system anatomy, calculi of any size, number, and position.
STUDY PERIOD: January 2018 and August 2021. Stone-free status: absence of fragments > 2 mm, assessed post procedure according to the local protocol (KUB X-Ray and/or ultrasound or non-contrast CT scan).
RESULTS: Twenty centers from fifteen countries enrolled 6669 patients. There were 4407 (66.2%) men. Mean age was 49.3 ± 15.59 years. Pain was the most frequent symptom indication for intervention (62.6%). 679 (10.2%) patients underwent RIRS for an incidental finding of stones. 2732 (41.0%) patients had multiple stones. Mean stone size was 10.04 ± 6.84 mm. A reusable flexible ureteroscope was used in 4803 (72.0%) procedures. A sheath-less RIRS was performed in 454 (6.8%) cases. Holmium:YAG laser was used in 4878 (73.1%) cases. A combination of dusting and fragmentation was the most common lithotripsy mode performed (64.3%). Mean operation time was 62.40 ± 17.76 min. 119 (1.8%) patients had an intraoperative injury of the ureter due to UAS insertion. Mean postoperative stay was 3.62 ± 3.47 days. At least one postoperative complication occurred in 535 (8.0%) patients. Sepsis requiring intensive care admission occurred in 84 (1.3%) patients. Residual fragments were detected in 1445 (21.7%) patients. Among the latter, 744 (51.5%) patients required a further intervention.
CONCLUSION: Our database contributes real-world data to support to a better understanding of modern RIRS practice and outcomes.
METHODS: Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of laser employed [Holmium:YAG (HL) or Thulium fiber laser (TFL)]. Residual fragments (RF) were defined as > 2 mm. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors associated with RF and RF needing further intervention.
RESULTS: 4208 patients from 20 centers were included. In whole series, age, recurrent stones, stone size, lower pole stones (LPS), and multiple stones were predictors of RF at multivariable analysis and LPS and stone size with RF requiring further treatment. HU and TFL were associated with lesser RF and RF requiring an additional treatment. In HU
PURPOSE: To develop a series of recommendations for the contemporary management management of staghorn calculi and to provide a clinical framework for urologists treating patients with these complex stones.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search for articles published in English between 01/01/1976 and 31/12/2022 in the PubMed, OVID, Embase and Medline database is performed. A series of recommendations are developed and individually graded following the review of literature and panel discussion.
RESULTS: The definition, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, preoperative evaluation, intraoperative treatment strategies and procedural advice, early postoperative management, follow up and prevention of stone recurrence are summarized in the present document.
CONCLUSION: A series of recommendations regarding the management of staghorn calculi, along with related commentary and supporting documentation offered in the present guideline is intended to provide a clinical framework for the practicing urologists in the management of staghorn calculi.