首页 > 最新文献

Central European Journal of Urology最新文献

英文 中文
The role of abdominal muscle training in combination with pelvic floor muscle training to treat female urinary incontinence - a pilot 12-week study. 腹部肌肉训练结合盆底肌肉训练对治疗女性尿失禁的作用--一项为期 12 周的试点研究。
IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-28 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2023.225
Eleni Konstantinidou, Vasileios Sakalis, Marina Kalaitzi, Ioannis Charalampous, Mytilekas Konstantinos-Vaios, Mikos Themistoklis, Dimitrios Hatzichristou, Apostolos Apostolidis

Introduction: Current literature is inconclusive as to whether transversus abdominis (TrA) training can provide an additional benefit to pelvic floor muscle (PFM) training in female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). We designed a study to investigate the effect of PFM and TrA training on incontinence parameters.

Material and methods: 60 females with SUI were randomised to PFM training alone or PFM plus TrA training. They all attended 12 weekly training sessions by a single physical therapist and completed relevant questionnaires at baseline and study completion.

Results: Both interventions reduced the number of incontinence episodes and improved quality of life (QoL) and sexual function. Women on PFM+TrA training reduced the number of used pads per day (p = 0.007), improved the QoL (p = 0.031) and the sexual lubrication score (p = 0.04), and reported better satisfaction rates compared to PFM alone (66.7% versus 43.3%). A subgroup analysis reported that women with pure SUI benefit more from combined PFM+TrA training compared to PFM alone (p = 0.04).

Conclusions: TrA add-on to PFM training was similar to PFM training alone in the reduction of incontinence episodes but was superior in reducing the number of pads needed, which suggests a beneficial effect on the severity of incontinence.

导言:关于腹横肌(TRA)训练能否为女性压力性尿失禁(SUI)患者的盆底肌(PFM)训练带来额外益处,目前的文献尚无定论。我们设计了一项研究,调查盆底肌和腹横肌训练对尿失禁参数的影响。材料和方法:60 名患有 SUI 的女性被随机分配到单独的盆底肌训练或盆底肌加腹横肌训练。她们都参加了由一名理疗师每周进行的 12 节训练课,并在基线和研究结束时填写了相关问卷:结果:两种干预方法都减少了尿失禁发作次数,提高了生活质量(QoL)和性功能。接受 PFM+TrA 训练的女性减少了每天使用尿垫的次数(p = 0.007),提高了 QoL(p = 0.031)和性润滑评分(p = 0.04),与单独接受 PFM 相比,满意度更高(66.7% 对 43.3%)。一项亚组分析显示,与单纯的 PFM 相比,单纯 SUI 女性从 PFM+TrA 联合训练中获益更多(p = 0.04):在减少尿失禁发作方面,PFM 训练中添加 TrA 与单独进行 PFM 训练的效果相似,但在减少所需尿垫数量方面更胜一筹,这表明对尿失禁的严重程度产生了有益的影响。
{"title":"The role of abdominal muscle training in combination with pelvic floor muscle training to treat female urinary incontinence - a pilot 12-week study.","authors":"Eleni Konstantinidou, Vasileios Sakalis, Marina Kalaitzi, Ioannis Charalampous, Mytilekas Konstantinos-Vaios, Mikos Themistoklis, Dimitrios Hatzichristou, Apostolos Apostolidis","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.225","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Current literature is inconclusive as to whether transversus abdominis (TrA) training can provide an additional benefit to pelvic floor muscle (PFM) training in female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). We designed a study to investigate the effect of PFM and TrA training on incontinence parameters.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>60 females with SUI were randomised to PFM training alone or PFM plus TrA training. They all attended 12 weekly training sessions by a single physical therapist and completed relevant questionnaires at baseline and study completion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both interventions reduced the number of incontinence episodes and improved quality of life (QoL) and sexual function. Women on PFM+TrA training reduced the number of used pads per day (p = 0.007), improved the QoL (p = 0.031) and the sexual lubrication score (p = 0.04), and reported better satisfaction rates compared to PFM alone (66.7% versus 43.3%). A subgroup analysis reported that women with pure SUI benefit more from combined PFM+TrA training compared to PFM alone (p = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TrA add-on to PFM training was similar to PFM training alone in the reduction of incontinence episodes but was superior in reducing the number of pads needed, which suggests a beneficial effect on the severity of incontinence.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"77 2","pages":"218-224"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428365/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142342548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Thulium laser transurethral incision of the prostate with ejaculation-sparing intent: 2-year follow-up outcomes from a high-volume centre. 保留射精功能的铥激光经尿道前列腺切开术:一家高流量中心的两年随访结果。
IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-07 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2023.266
Marco Carilli, Riccardo Bertolo, Matteo Vittori, Valerio Iacovelli, Michele Antonucci, Francesco Maiorino, Marta Signoretti, Filomena Petta, Pierluigi Bove

Introduction: Several 'ultra-minimally-invasive' surgical treatments (uMISTs) have been developed, aiming to relieve benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) and spare ejaculatory function; however, such techniques do not always ensure substantial improvements in uroflowmetry parameters. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the 2-year functional outcomes of thulium laser transurethral incision of the prostate (ThuIP) as an alternative to uMISTs.

Material and methods: Data of consecutive patients affected by BPO with indication to surgical intervention and a strong will to spare ejaculatory function were collected on a dedicated prospectively maintained database. A specific "trifecta" was identified as the contemporary presence of: (1) post-operative Qmax ≥15 ml/s; (2) absence of early (within 90 days) complications; and (3) preserved antegrade ejaculation.

Results: 120 patients underwent ThuIP and were analysed. Median catheterisation time was 2 days (IQR 2-2). Significant improvements in IPSS and IPSS-QoL scores and uroflowmetry parameters were observed at all follow-up times. At the last follow-up visit (24 months) the median ΔIPSS was -12 (-17; -9), median ΔIPSS-QoL was -3 (-4; -2), median ΔQmax was +7.7 ml/s (+5.2; +11.0), and median ΔPVR was -50 ml (-100; 0) (all p-values <0.001). Fourteen patients reported postoperative absence of antegrade ejaculation (11.7%). Overall, trifecta was achieved in 86 patients (71.7%) at 6 months, in 79 patients (65.8%) at 12 months, and in 75 patients (62.5%) at 24 months.

Conclusions: ThuIP allows for a significant improvement in uroflowmetry parameters and patient-reported outcomes at 2-year follow-up. Moreover, antegrade ejaculation is preserved in approximately 90% of cases.

导言:目前已开发出多种 "超微创 "手术疗法(uMISTs),旨在缓解良性前列腺梗阻(BPO)并恢复射精功能;然而,这些技术并不总能确保尿流参数得到实质性改善。本研究旨在评估铥激光经尿道前列腺切开术(ThuIP)作为尿道前列腺电切术(uMISTs)替代方案的两年功能效果:在一个专门的前瞻性数据库中收集了受前列腺增生症(BPO)影响的连续患者的数据,这些患者均有手术干预指征,并有保留射精功能的强烈意愿。特定的 "三连胜 "被认定为同时具备以下条件:(1)术后Qmax≥15毫升/秒;(2)无早期(90天内)并发症;(3)保留逆行射精:对 120 名患者进行了 ThuIP 分析。导管插入时间中位数为 2 天(IQR 2-2)。在所有随访时间内,IPSS、IPSS-QoL 评分和尿流参数均有显著改善。在最后一次随访(24 个月)时,中位数 ΔIPSS 为 -12 (-17; -9),中位数 ΔIPSS-QoL 为 -3 (-4; -2),中位数 ΔQmax 为 +7.7 ml/s (+5.2; +11.0),中位数 ΔPVR 为 -50 ml (-100; 0)(所有 p 值均为结论):ThuIP 可显著改善尿流参数,并在 2 年随访时改善患者报告的结果。此外,约 90% 的病例保留了逆行射精功能。
{"title":"Thulium laser transurethral incision of the prostate with ejaculation-sparing intent: 2-year follow-up outcomes from a high-volume centre.","authors":"Marco Carilli, Riccardo Bertolo, Matteo Vittori, Valerio Iacovelli, Michele Antonucci, Francesco Maiorino, Marta Signoretti, Filomena Petta, Pierluigi Bove","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.266","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.266","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Several 'ultra-minimally-invasive' surgical treatments (uMISTs) have been developed, aiming to relieve benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) and spare ejaculatory function; however, such techniques do not always ensure substantial improvements in uroflowmetry parameters. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the 2-year functional outcomes of thulium laser transurethral incision of the prostate (ThuIP) as an alternative to uMISTs.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Data of consecutive patients affected by BPO with indication to surgical intervention and a strong will to spare ejaculatory function were collected on a dedicated prospectively maintained database. A specific \"trifecta\" was identified as the contemporary presence of: (1) post-operative Qmax ≥15 ml/s; (2) absence of early (within 90 days) complications; and (3) preserved antegrade ejaculation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>120 patients underwent ThuIP and were analysed. Median catheterisation time was 2 days (IQR 2-2). Significant improvements in IPSS and IPSS-QoL scores and uroflowmetry parameters were observed at all follow-up times. At the last follow-up visit (24 months) the median ΔIPSS was -12 (-17; -9), median ΔIPSS-QoL was -3 (-4; -2), median ΔQmax was +7.7 ml/s (+5.2; +11.0), and median ΔPVR was -50 ml (-100; 0) (all p-values <0.001). Fourteen patients reported postoperative absence of antegrade ejaculation (11.7%). Overall, trifecta was achieved in 86 patients (71.7%) at 6 months, in 79 patients (65.8%) at 12 months, and in 75 patients (62.5%) at 24 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ThuIP allows for a significant improvement in uroflowmetry parameters and patient-reported outcomes at 2-year follow-up. Moreover, antegrade ejaculation is preserved in approximately 90% of cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"77 2","pages":"235-242"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428362/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142342550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Robotic left nephrectomy with level IV inferior vena cava thrombectomy using the AngioVac system. 使用 AngioVac 系统进行机器人左肾切除术和 IV 级下腔静脉血栓切除术。
IF 1.2 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-06 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2023.254
Jacopo Durante, Michele Santarsieri, Francesca Manassero, Girolamo Fiorini, Claudia Cariello, Piero Lippolis, Andrea Colli, Giorgio Pomara
{"title":"Robotic left nephrectomy with level IV inferior vena cava thrombectomy using the AngioVac system.","authors":"Jacopo Durante, Michele Santarsieri, Francesca Manassero, Girolamo Fiorini, Claudia Cariello, Piero Lippolis, Andrea Colli, Giorgio Pomara","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.254","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.254","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"77 1","pages":"159-160"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11032026/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140847415","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic ileal ureteral replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis. 机器人辅助与腹腔镜回肠输尿管置换术:系统回顾与荟萃分析。
IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-11 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2023.145
Breno C Porto, Mikhael Belkovsky, Giulia V Zogaib, Carlo C Passerotti, Everson L A Artifon, Jose P Otoch, Jose A S Da Cruz

Introduction: Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) are the main options for ileal ureteral replacement (IUR). It is not clear which option is superior. The purpose of this study is to compare RALS and LS for IUR.

Material and methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar for studies comparing RALS and LS for IUR. The outcomes of interest are operative time, blood loss, postoperative stay, and Clavien-Dindo complications. Meta-analysis was performed with Rev Man version 5.4.

Results: We included 36 patients from 3 studies. The mean age was 44 years, with 53% male patients. Blood loss (MD -89.13 cc, CI -129.03 to -49.22, I2 = 0%) was significantly lower in patients undergoing RALS when comparing with LS. No differences were observed when comparing operative time (MD -10.99 minutes, CI -85.66 to 63.59, p = 0.77, I2 = 64%), postoperative stay (MD -2.56 days, CI -8.24 to 3.13, p = 0.38, I2 = 30%), and postoperative complications (OR 1.63, CI 0.27 to 10.02, p = 0.60, I2 = 0%).

Conclusions: Overall, we conclude that the robot-assisted technique showed less bleeding compared to the laparoscopic technique.

导言:机器人辅助腹腔镜手术(RALS)和传统腹腔镜手术(LS)是回肠输尿管置换术(IUR)的主要选择。目前尚不清楚哪种方案更优越。本研究的目的是比较 RALS 和 LS 对 IUR 的治疗效果:我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science、Scopus、Cochrane Central和Google Scholar中比较RALS和LS治疗IUR的研究。我们关注的结果包括手术时间、失血量、术后住院时间和 Clavien-Dindo 并发症。使用 Rev Man 5.4 版进行了 Meta 分析:我们纳入了 3 项研究中的 36 名患者。平均年龄为 44 岁,男性患者占 53%。与 LS 相比,RALS 患者的失血量(MD -89.13 cc,CI -129.03 至 -49.22,I2 = 0%)明显降低。在比较手术时间(MD -10.99分钟,CI -85.66至63.59,P = 0.77,I2 = 64%)、术后住院时间(MD -2.56天,CI -8.24至3.13,P = 0.38,I2 = 30%)和术后并发症(OR 1.63,CI 0.27至10.02,P = 0.60,I2 = 0%)时,未观察到差异:总体而言,我们认为机器人辅助技术比腹腔镜技术出血更少。
{"title":"Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic ileal ureteral replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Breno C Porto, Mikhael Belkovsky, Giulia V Zogaib, Carlo C Passerotti, Everson L A Artifon, Jose P Otoch, Jose A S Da Cruz","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.145","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.145","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) are the main options for ileal ureteral replacement (IUR). It is not clear which option is superior. The purpose of this study is to compare RALS and LS for IUR.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar for studies comparing RALS and LS for IUR. The outcomes of interest are operative time, blood loss, postoperative stay, and Clavien-Dindo complications. Meta-analysis was performed with Rev Man version 5.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 36 patients from 3 studies. The mean age was 44 years, with 53% male patients. Blood loss (MD -89.13 cc, CI -129.03 to -49.22, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) was significantly lower in patients undergoing RALS when comparing with LS. No differences were observed when comparing operative time (MD -10.99 minutes, CI -85.66 to 63.59, p = 0.77, I<sup>2</sup> = 64%), postoperative stay (MD -2.56 days, CI -8.24 to 3.13, p = 0.38, I<sup>2</sup> = 30%), and postoperative complications (OR 1.63, CI 0.27 to 10.02, p = 0.60, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, we conclude that the robot-assisted technique showed less bleeding compared to the laparoscopic technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"77 2","pages":"304-309"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428349/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142342545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Safety and effectiveness of mirabegron for children and adolescents with refractory idiopathic overactive bladder for improving urinary symptoms: a systematic review. 米拉贝琼治疗难治性特发性膀胱过度活动症儿童和青少年改善排尿症状的安全性和有效性:系统性综述。
IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-25 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2023.237
Daniela Franco-Buenaventura, Herney Andrés García-Perdomo

Introduction: The aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of mirabegron in children with refractory overactive bladder (OAB) for improving urinary symptoms.

Material and methods: We conducted a search strategy in MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and LILACS from inception to September 2023. We performed a systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of improving urinary symptoms and the safety of mirabegron at any dose in children and adolescents with idiopathic refractory OAB. We searched the interception to September 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for clinical trials and the MINORS tool for non-randomized studies.

Results: We included three studies in the analysis. All of them included children and adolescents receiving mirabegron as monotherapy at different doses. Also, none of them reported a control group. Improvement and safety rates were high in every study in objective and subjective measurements. Compliance was also high in all studies. Most of the evaluated items had a low risk of bias within and across studies.

Conclusions: Mirabegron as monotherapy appears to be a safe and effective alternative for children with refractory idiopathic OAB or those who are intolerant to antimuscarinic therapy.

简介:本研究旨在确定米拉贝琼对难治性膀胱过度活动症(OAB)儿童改善排尿症状的安全性和有效性:本研究旨在确定米拉贝琼对难治性膀胱过度活动症(OAB)患儿改善排尿症状的安全性和有效性:从开始到 2023 年 9 月,我们在 MEDLINE (OVID)、EMBASE、Cochrane 对照试验中央注册中心 (CENTRAL) 和 LILACS 中进行了检索。我们对评估任何剂量的米瑞贝琼对特发性难治性 OAB 儿童和青少年改善排尿症状的有效性和安全性的研究进行了系统性回顾。我们检索了截至 2023 年 9 月的截取数据。使用Cochrane临床试验偏倚风险工具和MINORS非随机研究偏倚风险工具评估了偏倚风险:我们在分析中纳入了三项研究。所有研究都纳入了接受不同剂量米拉贝琼单药治疗的儿童和青少年。此外,这些研究均未报告对照组。在每项研究中,客观和主观指标的改善率和安全率都很高。所有研究的依从性也很高。大多数评估项目在研究内部和研究之间的偏倚风险较低:米拉贝琼作为单一疗法似乎是难治性特发性 OAB 患儿或对抗抑郁药治疗不耐受的患儿的一种安全有效的替代疗法。
{"title":"Safety and effectiveness of mirabegron for children and adolescents with refractory idiopathic overactive bladder for improving urinary symptoms: a systematic review.","authors":"Daniela Franco-Buenaventura, Herney Andrés García-Perdomo","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.237","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.237","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of mirabegron in children with refractory overactive bladder (OAB) for improving urinary symptoms.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We conducted a search strategy in MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and LILACS from inception to September 2023. We performed a systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of improving urinary symptoms and the safety of mirabegron at any dose in children and adolescents with idiopathic refractory OAB. We searched the interception to September 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for clinical trials and the MINORS tool for non-randomized studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included three studies in the analysis. All of them included children and adolescents receiving mirabegron as monotherapy at different doses. Also, none of them reported a control group. Improvement and safety rates were high in every study in objective and subjective measurements. Compliance was also high in all studies. Most of the evaluated items had a low risk of bias within and across studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mirabegron as monotherapy appears to be a safe and effective alternative for children with refractory idiopathic OAB or those who are intolerant to antimuscarinic therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"77 2","pages":"206-212"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428357/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142342546","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Transurethral resection and other minimally invasive treatment options for BPH: would we treat ourselves as we treat our patients? Results from EAU Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) decision-making survey among urologists. 前列腺增生症的经尿道切除术和其他微创治疗方案:我们会像对待病人一样对待自己吗?欧洲泌尿外科医师协会泌尿外科技术分会(ESUT)决策调查的结果。
IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-01 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2023.278
Holly Colvin, Max Johnston, Francesco Ripa, Mriganka Mani Sinha, Amelia Pietropaolo, James Brewin, Christian Fiori, Ali Gozen, Bhaskar K Somani

Introduction: With the introduction of novel treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), decision making regarding surgical management has become ever more complex. Factors such as clinical exposure, equipment availability, patient characteristics and hospital setting may affect what treatment is offered and an informed patient choice. The aim of this study was to investigate how urologists help patients make decisions regarding BPH management and whether their practice would differ if they were the patient themselves.

Material and methods: A 52-question survey presenting hypothetical clinical scenarios was distributed to European urologists and trainees/residents online and in person. In each scenario, regarding treatment options for BPH, the participant considered themselves firstly as the treating clinician and secondly as the patient themselves. Details regarding the participants' clinical experience, awareness of treatment options and exposure to these options were obtained.

Results: There were 139 participants; 69.8% of whom were consultants, with 82.1% of participants having practiced urology for more than 5 years. A total of 59.7% of urologists consider themselves BPH specialists. Furthermore, 93.5% of those surveyed had performed transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), whilst procedures performed the least by participants were minimally invasive surgical therapy (MIST) options. Only 17.3% had seen and 1.4% had performed all of the treatment options. When considering themselves as a patient within standard practice, there was a preference for HoLEP amongst participants.

Conclusions: The majority of urologists surveyed had minimal experience to newer BPH techniques and MIST, suggesting that more exposure is required. A higher rate of HoLEP was chosen as a treatment option for urologists themselves as a patient than what they would choose as an option for their patients.

简介:随着良性前列腺增生症(BPH)新型治疗方案的推出,手术治疗的决策变得越来越复杂。临床接触、设备可用性、患者特征和医院环境等因素可能会影响治疗方案和患者的知情选择。本研究旨在探讨泌尿科医生如何帮助患者就良性前列腺增生症的治疗做出决定,以及如果他们自己就是患者,他们的做法是否会有所不同:向欧洲泌尿科医生和实习生/住院医师在线和当面发放了一份包含 52 个问题的调查问卷,介绍了假设的临床情景。在有关良性前列腺增生症治疗方案的每个情景中,参与者首先将自己视为主治临床医生,其次将自己视为患者本人。研究人员详细了解了参与者的临床经验、对治疗方案的认识以及对这些方案的接触情况:共有 139 名参与者,其中 69.8% 是顾问,82.1% 的参与者从事泌尿外科工作超过 5 年。共有 59.7% 的泌尿科医生认为自己是良性前列腺增生症专家。此外,93.5%的受访者实施过经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP),而受访者实施最少的手术是微创手术疗法(MIST)。只有 17.3% 的人看过所有治疗方案,1.4% 的人实施过所有治疗方案。将自己视为标准实践中的患者时,参与者更倾向于采用HoLEP:结论:接受调查的大多数泌尿科医生对较新的良性前列腺增生症技术和MIST的经验很少,这表明需要更多的接触。泌尿科医生自己选择 HoLEP 作为治疗方案的比例高于他们为病人选择的比例。
{"title":"Transurethral resection and other minimally invasive treatment options for BPH: would we treat ourselves as we treat our patients? Results from EAU Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) decision-making survey among urologists.","authors":"Holly Colvin, Max Johnston, Francesco Ripa, Mriganka Mani Sinha, Amelia Pietropaolo, James Brewin, Christian Fiori, Ali Gozen, Bhaskar K Somani","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.278","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.278","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>With the introduction of novel treatment options for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), decision making regarding surgical management has become ever more complex. Factors such as clinical exposure, equipment availability, patient characteristics and hospital setting may affect what treatment is offered and an informed patient choice. The aim of this study was to investigate how urologists help patients make decisions regarding BPH management and whether their practice would differ if they were the patient themselves.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A 52-question survey presenting hypothetical clinical scenarios was distributed to European urologists and trainees/residents online and in person. In each scenario, regarding treatment options for BPH, the participant considered themselves firstly as the treating clinician and secondly as the patient themselves. Details regarding the participants' clinical experience, awareness of treatment options and exposure to these options were obtained.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 139 participants; 69.8% of whom were consultants, with 82.1% of participants having practiced urology for more than 5 years. A total of 59.7% of urologists consider themselves BPH specialists. Furthermore, 93.5% of those surveyed had performed transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), whilst procedures performed the least by participants were minimally invasive surgical therapy (MIST) options. Only 17.3% had seen and 1.4% had performed all of the treatment options. When considering themselves as a patient within standard practice, there was a preference for HoLEP amongst participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The majority of urologists surveyed had minimal experience to newer BPH techniques and MIST, suggesting that more exposure is required. A higher rate of HoLEP was chosen as a treatment option for urologists themselves as a patient than what they would choose as an option for their patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"77 2","pages":"243-255"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428359/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142342551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Robotic simple prostatectomy vs HOLEP, a 'multi single-center' experiences comparison. 机器人简单前列腺切除术与HOLEP,“多单中心”经验比较。
IF 1.2 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-17 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2023.204
Alfredo Maria Bove, Aldo Brassetti, Mario Ochoa, Umberto Anceschi, Simone D'Annunzio, Marilia Ferriero, Gabriele Tuderti, Leonardo Misuraca, Riccardo Mastroianni, Silvia Cartolano, Giulia Torregiani, Riccardo Lombardo, Cosimo De Nunzio, Giuseppe Simone

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare peri-operative and mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) vs holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HOLEP). RASP and HOLEP are the treatments of choice for men with symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) and a prostate ≥80 g, achieving comparable short and mid-term efficacy. No randomized controlled studies have proved the superiority of one technique over the other.

Material and methods: The prospectively maintained databases of the participating institutions were queried for patients with a prostate volume (PV) ≥80 g, who underwent surgery for BPO between 2011 and 2021. The study population was divided into two subgroups based on surgical approach. Demographics, baseline characteristics, and 12 months outcomes were compared between groups: χ2 and Student t-tests were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. The Trifecta composite outcome (post-operative Q-max >15 ml/sec, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) <8 and absence of complications) was used to define surgical quality and the two groups were compared accordingly. Logistic regression analyses investigated predictors of Trifecta achievement.

Results: We included 97 patients with comparable pre-operative features (all p >0.30): 43 underwent RASP, 54 HOLEP. Median PV was 102 g (IQR 89-120) and Q-max was 7.2 ml/s (IQR 5.4-9.0). The Trifecta rate was 43% overall, higher in the RASP subgroup (56% vs 33%; p = 0.02). The endoscopic approach was its only independent predictor (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.28-0.88; p = 0.016).

Conclusions: At univariable regression analysis, surgical approach was the only independent predictor of Trifecta achievement, which was significantly higher in the RASP group compared to HOLEP.

引言:本研究的目的是比较接受机器人辅助简单前列腺切除术(RASP)和钬激光前列腺摘除术(HOLEP)的患者的围手术期和中期结果。RASP和HOLEP是有症状的良性前列腺梗阻(BPO)和前列腺≥80g的男性的首选治疗方法,短期和中期疗效相当。没有随机对照研究证明一种技术优于另一种技术。材料和方法:对参与机构前瞻性维护的数据库中2011年至2021年间接受BPO手术的前列腺体积(PV)≥80 g的患者进行查询。研究人群根据手术方法分为两个亚组。比较各组间的人口学、基线特征和12个月的结果:分类变量和连续变量分别采用χ2和Student t检验。Trifecta的综合结果(术后Q-max>15 ml/sec,国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS))结果:我们纳入了97名具有可比术前特征的患者(均p>0.05):43名接受了RASP,54名接受了HOLEP。中位PV为102 g(IQR 89-120),Q-max为7.2 ml/s(IQR 5.4-9.0)。Trifecta发生率总体为43%,在RASP亚组中更高(56%对33%;p=0.02)。内镜入路是其唯一的独立预测因素(OR 0.5;95%CI 0.28-0.88;p=0.016)。结论:在单变量回归分析中,手术入路是Trifecta成功的唯一独立预测因素,这在RASP组中显著高于HOLEP。
{"title":"Robotic simple prostatectomy vs HOLEP, a 'multi single-center' experiences comparison.","authors":"Alfredo Maria Bove,&nbsp;Aldo Brassetti,&nbsp;Mario Ochoa,&nbsp;Umberto Anceschi,&nbsp;Simone D'Annunzio,&nbsp;Marilia Ferriero,&nbsp;Gabriele Tuderti,&nbsp;Leonardo Misuraca,&nbsp;Riccardo Mastroianni,&nbsp;Silvia Cartolano,&nbsp;Giulia Torregiani,&nbsp;Riccardo Lombardo,&nbsp;Cosimo De Nunzio,&nbsp;Giuseppe Simone","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.204","DOIUrl":"10.5173/ceju.2023.204","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare peri-operative and mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) vs holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HOLEP). RASP and HOLEP are the treatments of choice for men with symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) and a prostate ≥80 g, achieving comparable short and mid-term efficacy. No randomized controlled studies have proved the superiority of one technique over the other.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The prospectively maintained databases of the participating institutions were queried for patients with a prostate volume (PV) ≥80 g, who underwent surgery for BPO between 2011 and 2021. The study population was divided into two subgroups based on surgical approach. Demographics, baseline characteristics, and 12 months outcomes were compared between groups: χ<sup>2</sup> and Student t-tests were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. The Trifecta composite outcome (post-operative Q-max >15 ml/sec, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) <8 and absence of complications) was used to define surgical quality and the two groups were compared accordingly. Logistic regression analyses investigated predictors of Trifecta achievement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 97 patients with comparable pre-operative features (all p >0.30): 43 underwent RASP, 54 HOLEP. Median PV was 102 g (IQR 89-120) and Q-max was 7.2 ml/s (IQR 5.4-9.0). The Trifecta rate was 43% overall, higher in the RASP subgroup (56% vs 33%; p = 0.02). The endoscopic approach was its only independent predictor (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.28-0.88; p = 0.016).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>At univariable regression analysis, surgical approach was the only independent predictor of Trifecta achievement, which was significantly higher in the RASP group compared to HOLEP.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"76 2","pages":"128-134"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/7e/a6/CEJU-76-204.PMC10357823.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9860923","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Methodology and findings of randomized clinical trials on pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions to treat renal colic pain – a review 药物和非药物干预治疗肾绞痛的随机临床试验的方法学和结果综述
Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2023.92
Introduction Renal colic pain is considered one of the most excruciating pains ever experienced and ranks as one of the most common urological emergencies. Despite existing established recommendations, new therapies and their combinations are continuously being tested. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze and compare studies involving pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions used in the treatment of renal colic pain. Material and methods This systematic review was conducted following the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult patients. The quality and results of the included studies were assessed and discussed. Results This review provides an extensive analysis of 71 identified RCTs. Opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, and dipyrone/metamizole have demonstrated effectiveness as single medications. Some evidence points to opioids having a potential disadvantage compared to others when used as a first-line single medication. Among the 63 studies exploring pharmacological therapy, 51 reported opioids utilization for rescue therapy in significant proportion of patients. Promising combination therapies involve the administration of an NSAID alongside opioids, ketamine, desmopressin, steroids, or nitric oxide. Conversely, spasmolytics, magnesium, and lidocaine exhibited limited or no additional effect. Noteworthy methodological shortcomings encompass a low pain threshold during participant recruitment and the reliance on pain reduction rather than complete pain elimination as an endpoint. Conclusions Frequent use of opioids as rescue medications in RCTs undermine their conclusions on effectiness of other therapeutics. Combination therapies should be considered as first choice in renal colic pain management. RCTs should define success of therapy as achieving complete or near-complete pain relief rather than pain reduction.
{"title":"Methodology and findings of randomized clinical trials on pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions to treat renal colic pain – a review","authors":"","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.92","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.92","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Renal colic pain is considered one of the most excruciating pains ever experienced and ranks as one of the most common urological emergencies. Despite existing established recommendations, new therapies and their combinations are continuously being tested. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze and compare studies involving pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions used in the treatment of renal colic pain. Material and methods This systematic review was conducted following the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult patients. The quality and results of the included studies were assessed and discussed. Results This review provides an extensive analysis of 71 identified RCTs. Opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, and dipyrone/metamizole have demonstrated effectiveness as single medications. Some evidence points to opioids having a potential disadvantage compared to others when used as a first-line single medication. Among the 63 studies exploring pharmacological therapy, 51 reported opioids utilization for rescue therapy in significant proportion of patients. Promising combination therapies involve the administration of an NSAID alongside opioids, ketamine, desmopressin, steroids, or nitric oxide. Conversely, spasmolytics, magnesium, and lidocaine exhibited limited or no additional effect. Noteworthy methodological shortcomings encompass a low pain threshold during participant recruitment and the reliance on pain reduction rather than complete pain elimination as an endpoint. Conclusions Frequent use of opioids as rescue medications in RCTs undermine their conclusions on effectiness of other therapeutics. Combination therapies should be considered as first choice in renal colic pain management. RCTs should define success of therapy as achieving complete or near-complete pain relief rather than pain reduction.","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"136 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135602438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Oncologic outcomes of postoperative adjuvant versus salvage radiotherapy in prostate cancer. 前列腺癌术后辅助放疗与补救性放疗的肿瘤学结果。
IF 1.2 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2023.190
Furkan Şendoğan, Turgay Turan, Ferhat Keser, Tayfun Hancilar, Gokhan Atis, Asif Yildirim

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the long-term oncological results of patients with the diagnosis of prostate cancer who underwent open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and subsequent adjuvant (ART) or salvage radiotherapy (SRT).

Material and methods: A total of 145 patients underwent open RRP for prostate cancer and subsequent ART or SRT postoperatively between 2010 and 2019. ART (n = 56) is defined as the group of patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <0.2 ng/mL or with positive lymph nodes without PSA increase who received radiotherapy within the first 6 months of urinary continence. SRT (n = 89) is defined as the group of patients with PSA >0.2 ng/mL who received RT before PSA amounted to 0.5 ng/mL.

Results: Statistically no significant difference was found between groups in terms of age, prostate volume, final pathology Gleason scores, lymphadenectomy, duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), time to relapse after radiotherapy, development of biochemical recurrence and disease progression. Extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion and surgical margin positivity were significantly higher in the ART group. No difference was found between the groups in terms of biochemical recurrence-free survival, while cancer-specific survival and overall survival rates were significantly higher in the SRT group.

Conclusions: It was found that cancer-specific and overall survival was better in the SRT group. It will be more appropriate to follow-up until the recurrence and then to perform SRT after the relapse in the postoperative period.

本研究的目的是比较诊断为前列腺癌的患者接受开放性根治性耻骨后前列腺切除术(RRP)和随后的辅助(ART)或补救性放疗(SRT)的长期肿瘤学结果。材料和方法:2010年至2019年期间,共有145例前列腺癌患者接受了开放式RRP和随后的ART或SRT手术。ART (n = 56)定义为前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)为0.2 ng/mL,在PSA达到0.5 ng/mL之前接受RT治疗的患者组。结果:两组患者在年龄、前列腺体积、最终病理Gleason评分、淋巴结切除术、雄激素剥夺治疗(ADT)持续时间、放疗后复发时间、生化复发情况、疾病进展等方面均无统计学差异。ART组前列腺外展、精囊侵犯及手术切缘阳性明显高于ART组。两组在生化无复发生存率方面无差异,而SRT组的癌症特异性生存率和总生存率明显高于SRT组。结论:发现SRT组的肿瘤特异性和总生存率更高。术后随访至复发,复发后再进行SRT治疗更为合适。
{"title":"Oncologic outcomes of postoperative adjuvant versus salvage radiotherapy in prostate cancer.","authors":"Furkan Şendoğan,&nbsp;Turgay Turan,&nbsp;Ferhat Keser,&nbsp;Tayfun Hancilar,&nbsp;Gokhan Atis,&nbsp;Asif Yildirim","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.190","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.190","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the long-term oncological results of patients with the diagnosis of prostate cancer who underwent open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and subsequent adjuvant (ART) or salvage radiotherapy (SRT).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 145 patients underwent open RRP for prostate cancer and subsequent ART or SRT postoperatively between 2010 and 2019. ART (n = 56) is defined as the group of patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <0.2 ng/mL or with positive lymph nodes without PSA increase who received radiotherapy within the first 6 months of urinary continence. SRT (n = 89) is defined as the group of patients with PSA >0.2 ng/mL who received RT before PSA amounted to 0.5 ng/mL.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Statistically no significant difference was found between groups in terms of age, prostate volume, final pathology Gleason scores, lymphadenectomy, duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), time to relapse after radiotherapy, development of biochemical recurrence and disease progression. Extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion and surgical margin positivity were significantly higher in the ART group. No difference was found between the groups in terms of biochemical recurrence-free survival, while cancer-specific survival and overall survival rates were significantly higher in the SRT group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It was found that cancer-specific and overall survival was better in the SRT group. It will be more appropriate to follow-up until the recurrence and then to perform SRT after the relapse in the postoperative period.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"76 2","pages":"109-115"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/21/55/CEJU-76-190.PMC10357821.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9864198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Predictors of trainees' proficiency during the learning curve of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at high- -volume institutions: results from a multicentric series. 在高容量机构中,机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术学习曲线中受训人员熟练程度的预测因素:来自多中心系列的结果。
IF 1.2 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2023.260
Umberto Anceschi, Michele Morelli, Rocco Simone Flammia, Aldo Brassetti, Paolo Dell'Oglio, Antonio Galfano, Stefano Tappero, Enrico Vecchio, Marco Martiriggiano, Lorenzo Giuseppe Luciani, Isabella Sperduti, Simone Albisinni, Gabriele Tuderti, Francesco Prata, Maria Consiglia Ferriero, Alfredo Maria Bove, Riccardo Mastroianni, Giuseppe Spadaro, Andrea Russo, Daniele Mattevi, Antonio Tufano, Costantino Leonardo, Riccardo Lombardo, Cosimo De Nunzio, Tommaso Cai, Thierry Quackels, Aldo Massimo Bocciardi, Giuseppe Simone

Introduction: The aim of this series was to evaluate predictors of Proficiency score (PS) achievement on a multicentric series of robot-assisted radical prostatectomies (RARP) performed by trainee surgeons with two different surgical techniques at four tertiary-care centers.

Material and methods: Four institutional datasets were merged and queried for RARPs performed by surgeons during their learning curve (LC) between 2010 and 2020 using two different approaches (Group A, Retzius-sparing RARP, n = 164; Group B, standard anterograde RARP, n = 79). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of PS achievement for the overall trainee cohort. For all analyses, a two-sided p <0.05 was considered significant.

Results: Group B showed significantly increased median operative time, positive surgical margins (PSM) status, increased number of nerve-sparing procedures, shorter LC time (each p <0.04). PS, continence status, potency, biochemical recurrence and 1-year trifecta rates were comparable between groups (each p >0.3). On multivariable analysis, time from LC starting ≥12 months (OR = 2.79; 95%IC [1.15-6.76]; p = 0.02) and a nerve-sparing intent (OR = 3.18; 95%IC [1.15-8.77]; p = 0.02) were independent predictors of PS score achievement (Table 3).

Conclusions: Higher PS rates for RARP trainees may be expected after 12 months from LC beginning. Short-term training courses are unlikely to confer proper surgical training, while long-term structured training programs seem to be beneficial on perioperative outcomes.

简介:本系列研究的目的是评估多中心机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(RARP)的熟练程度评分(PS)的预测因素,这些手术由四家三级医疗中心的实习外科医生采用两种不同的手术技术进行。材料和方法:合并4个机构数据集,查询2010年至2020年期间外科医生在学习曲线(LC)期间使用两种不同方法进行的RARP (A组,Retzius-sparing RARP, n = 164;B组为标准逆行RARP组,n = 79)。进行逻辑回归分析,以确定整个受训队列的PS成就的预测因素。对于所有分析,双侧p结果:B组显示显著增加中位手术时间,阳性手术切缘(PSM)状态,增加神经保留手术次数,缩短LC时间(各p 0.3)。在多变量分析中,LC开始时间≥12个月(OR = 2.79;集成电路(1.15 - -6.76)95%;p = 0.02)和神经保护意图(OR = 3.18;集成电路(1.15 - -8.77)95%;p = 0.02)是PS评分实现的独立预测因子(表3)。结论:从LC开始12个月后,RARP受训者的PS率可能会更高。短期培训课程不太可能提供适当的手术培训,而长期的结构化培训计划似乎有利于围手术期的结果。
{"title":"Predictors of trainees' proficiency during the learning curve of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at high- -volume institutions: results from a multicentric series.","authors":"Umberto Anceschi,&nbsp;Michele Morelli,&nbsp;Rocco Simone Flammia,&nbsp;Aldo Brassetti,&nbsp;Paolo Dell'Oglio,&nbsp;Antonio Galfano,&nbsp;Stefano Tappero,&nbsp;Enrico Vecchio,&nbsp;Marco Martiriggiano,&nbsp;Lorenzo Giuseppe Luciani,&nbsp;Isabella Sperduti,&nbsp;Simone Albisinni,&nbsp;Gabriele Tuderti,&nbsp;Francesco Prata,&nbsp;Maria Consiglia Ferriero,&nbsp;Alfredo Maria Bove,&nbsp;Riccardo Mastroianni,&nbsp;Giuseppe Spadaro,&nbsp;Andrea Russo,&nbsp;Daniele Mattevi,&nbsp;Antonio Tufano,&nbsp;Costantino Leonardo,&nbsp;Riccardo Lombardo,&nbsp;Cosimo De Nunzio,&nbsp;Tommaso Cai,&nbsp;Thierry Quackels,&nbsp;Aldo Massimo Bocciardi,&nbsp;Giuseppe Simone","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.260","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.260","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this series was to evaluate predictors of Proficiency score (PS) achievement on a multicentric series of robot-assisted radical prostatectomies (RARP) performed by trainee surgeons with two different surgical techniques at four tertiary-care centers.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Four institutional datasets were merged and queried for RARPs performed by surgeons during their learning curve (LC) between 2010 and 2020 using two different approaches (Group A, Retzius-sparing RARP, n = 164; Group B, standard anterograde RARP, n = 79). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of PS achievement for the overall trainee cohort. For all analyses, a two-sided p <0.05 was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group B showed significantly increased median operative time, positive surgical margins (PSM) status, increased number of nerve-sparing procedures, shorter LC time (each p <0.04). PS, continence status, potency, biochemical recurrence and 1-year trifecta rates were comparable between groups (each p >0.3). On multivariable analysis, time from LC starting ≥12 months (OR = 2.79; 95%IC [1.15-6.76]; p = 0.02) and a nerve-sparing intent (OR = 3.18; 95%IC [1.15-8.77]; p = 0.02) were independent predictors of PS score achievement (Table 3).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Higher PS rates for RARP trainees may be expected after 12 months from LC beginning. Short-term training courses are unlikely to confer proper surgical training, while long-term structured training programs seem to be beneficial on perioperative outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"76 1","pages":"38-43"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0e/3a/CEJU-76-260.PMC10091888.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9309522","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
期刊
Central European Journal of Urology
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1