Prospective Randomized Controlled Study on the Efficacy of Multimedia Informed Consent for Patients Scheduled to Undergo Green-Light High-Performance System Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a multimedia informed consent (IC) presentation on the understanding and satisfaction of patients who were scheduled to receive 120-W green-light high-performance system photoselective vaporization of the prostate (HPS-PVP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multimedia IC (M-IC) presentation for HPS-PVP was developed. Forty men with benign prostatic hyperplasia who were scheduled to undergo HPS-PVP were prospectively randomized to a conventional written IC group (W-IC group, n=20) or the M-IC group (n=20). The allocated IC was obtained by one certified urologist, followed by a 15-question test (maximum score, 15) to evaluate objective understanding, and questionnaires on subjective understanding (range, 0~10) and satisfaction (range, 0~10) using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics, including age and the highest level of education, did not significantly differ between the two groups. No significant differences were found in scores reflecting the objective understanding of HPS-PVP (9.9±2.3 vs. 10.6±2.8, p=0.332) or in subjective understanding scores (7.5±2.1 vs. 8.6±1.7, p=0.122); however, the M-IC group showed higher satisfaction scores than the W-IC group (7.4±1.7 vs. 8.4±1.5, p=0.033). After adjusting for age and educational level, the M-IC group still had significantly higher satisfaction scores. CONCLUSIONS: M-IC did not enhance the objective knowledge of patients regarding this surgical procedure. However, it improved the satisfaction of patients with the IC process itself.

Discordance between location of positive cores in biopsy and location of positive surgical margin following radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE: We compared location of positive cores in biopsy and location of positive surgical margin (PSM) following radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis included patients who were diagnosed as prostate cancer by standard 12-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy, and who have PSM after radical prostatectomy. After exclusion of number of biopsy cores <12, and lack of biopsy location data, 46 patients with PSM were identified. Locations of PSM in pathologic specimen were reported as 6 difference sites (apex, base and lateral in both sides). Discordance of biopsy result and PSM was defined when no positive cores in biopsy was identified at the location of PSM. RESULTS: Most common location of PSM were right apex (n=21) and left apex (n=15). Multiple PSM was reported in 21 specimens (45.7%). In 32 specimens (69.6%) with PSM, one or more concordant positive biopsy cores were identified, but 14 specimens (28%) had no concordant biopsy cores at PSM location. When discordant rate was separated by locations of PSM, right apex PSM had highest rate of discordant (38%). The discordant group had significantly lower prostate volume and lower number of positive cores in biopsy than concordant group. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that one fourth of PSM occurred at location where tumor was not detected at biopsy and that apex PSM had highest rate of discordant. Careful dissection to avoid PSM should be performed in every location, including where tumor was not identified in biopsy.