Trasplante renal abierto frente a trasplante renal asistido por robot: revisión sistemática del grupo de trabajo de trasplante renal de la sección de Jóvenes Urólogos Académicos (YAU) de la Asociación Europea de Urología (EAU) / Open versus robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: A systematic review by the European Association of Urology (EAU) – Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Kidney Transplant Working Group

Introducción En los últimos 20 años se ha evaluado el uso de la robótica en el campo del trasplante renal como abordaje miniinvasivo a esta población especialmente vulnerable. Al tratarse de un campo relativamente novedoso, pocos estudios han comparado el trasplante renal abierto (TRA) y el trasplante renal asistido por robot (TRAR), la mayoría en cohortes pequeñas. Para ampliar los conocimientos actuales, hemos querido reunir en este documento datos comparativos de TRA frente a TRAR en una revisión sistemática. Métodos Se realizó una revisión sistemática de acuerdo con la declaración de Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Se realizaron búsquedas en las bases de datos Medline, Embase y Cochrane para identificar todos los estudios que informaran sobre los resultados postoperatorios del TRAR frente al TRA. Resultados Un total de 2.136 pacientes de 13 estudios fueron incluidos. La mediana de edad de los receptores fue de 42,6 años (TRA: 43,5 años y TRAR: 40,3 años). La mediana de la tasa de trasplante renal preventivo fue de 27,1% (TRA: 23,3% y TRAR: 33,2%). La mediana del tiempo quirúrgico total y de recalentamiento fueron: 235 y 49 min, respectivamente, en la población TRA; 250 y 60 min en la población TRAR. Las tasas de complicaciones postoperatorias fueron: 26,2% en la población TRA y 17,8% en la población TRAR. Las tasas de retraso en la función del injerto fueron: 4,9% en la población TRA y 2,3 en la población TRAR. Los resultados funcionales a medio plazo y la supervivencia del paciente y del injerto fueron similares entre las poblaciones TRA y TRAR. Conclusión Esta revisión sistemática demostró que el TRAR puede asociarse a una menor incidencia de retraso en la función del injerto y de complicaciones quirúrgicas postoperatorias, así como a unos resultados funcionales a medio plazo y una supervivencia del paciente y del injerto similares, en comparación con el TRA para los pacientes con enfermedad renal terminal (AU)

Introduction In the last 20 years, robotic assisted procedures were evaluated in the field of kidney transplantation to provide a mini-invasive approach for this particularly fragile population. As a relatively new issue, few studies compared open kidney transplantation (OKT) and robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT), mostly in small cohorts. To improve current knowledge, we wanted here to gather comparative data of OKT vs RAKT in a systematic review. Methods A systematic review was performed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify all studies reporting post-operative outcomes of RAKT versus OKT. Results A total of 2,136 patients in 13 studies were included. Median recipient age was 42.6 years (OKT: 43.5 years and RAKT: 40.3 years). Median preemptive kidney transplantation rate was 27.1% (OKT: 23.3% and RAKT: 33.2%). Median total operative time and rewarming were respectively: 235 and 49 minutes in OKT population; 250 and 60 minutes in RAKT population.Post-operative complications rates were: 26.2% in OKT population and 17.8% in RAKT population. Delayed graft function rates were: 4.9% in OKT population and 2.3 in RAKT population. Mid-term functional outcomes, patient and graft survival were similar in OKT and RAKT population. Conclusion This systematic review showed that RAKT may be associated with a lower incidence of delayed graft function and post-operative surgical complications and similar mid-term functional outcomes, patient and graft survival, compared to OKT for end-stage renal disease patients (AU)

Open versus robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: A systematic review by the European Association of Urology (EAU) - Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Kidney Transplant Working Group.

INTRODUCTION: In the last 20 years, robotic assisted procedures were evaluated in the field of kidney transplantation to provide a mini-invasive approach for this particularly fragile population. As a relatively new issue, few studies compared open kidney transplantation (OKT) and robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT), mostly in small cohorts. To improve current knowledge, we wanted here to gather comparative data of OKT vs RAKT in a systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify all studies reporting post-operative outcomes of RAKT versus OKT. RESULTS: A total of 2136 patients in 13 studies were included. Median recipient age was 42.6 years (OKT: 43.5 years and RAKT: 40.3 years). Median preemptive kidney transplantation rate was 27.1 % (OKT: 23.3 % and RAKT: 33.2 %). Median total operative time and rewarming were respectively: 235 and 49 min in OKT population; 250 and 60 min in RAKT population. Post-operative complications rates were: 26.2 % in OKT population and 17.8 % in RAKT population. Delayed graft function rates were: 4.9 % in OKT population and 2.3 in RAKT population. Mid-term functional outcomes, patient and graft survival were similar in OKT and RAKT population. CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed that RAKT may be associated with a lower incidence of delayed graft function and post-operative surgical complications and similar mid-term functional outcomes, patient and graft survival, compared to OKT for end-stage renal disease patients.

[De novo or secondary metastatic prostate cancer management in France: Observational study from "sentinel multidisciplinary meeting" of the French Association of Urology]. / Prise en charge des cancers de la prostate métastatiques synchrones et métachrones en France : étude observationnelle à partir des « RCP sentinelles ¼ de l'AFU.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) is an heterogeneous disease. Metachronous mPCa (MM) seems to have a better prognosis than synchronous mPCa (SM). However, it is difficult to analyze their specificities from national registries. Data from the so-called "sentinel multidisciplinary meeting" (SMDM) would represent a "real life" data collection. The objective of this national pilot study was to evaluate the concept of SMDM through the description and comparison of the diagnosis, management and follow-up of patients with synchronous or metachronous mPCa in 2018. METHODS: A survey covering clinical, biological, radiological data as well as treatment initiated and follow-up at 3 and 6 months was sent to the SMDM. All patients diagnosed with metastatic disease (SM or MM) between 01/01/2018 and 11/30/2018 were included. RESULTS: In total, 780 patients from 39 centers were included, 408 SM and 372 MM. SM were more symptomatic and had a higher metastatic burden than MM. PET were mostly performed in MM without a prior standard staging. SM patients received more chemotherapy than MM patients whereas new generation androgen deprivation therapy was mostly given to MM patients. At 6 months, there were no more significant difference in clinical presentation between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Specificities of SM and MM patients in terms of clinical presentation, metastatic burden and management were described, validating the concept of SMDM as a source of reliable informations.

Multicenter external validation of the radical cystectomy pentafecta in a European cohort of patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion for bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To perform an external validation of this RC-pentafecta. METHOD: Between January 2014 and December 2019, 104 consecutive patients who underwent RARC with ICUD within 6 urological centers were analyzed retrospectively. Patients who simultaneously demonstrated negative soft tissue surgical margins (STSMs), a lymph node (LN) yield ≥ 16, absence of major (Clavien-Dindo grade III-V) 90-day postoperative complications, absence of UD-related long-term sequelae, and absence of 12-month clinical recurrence were considered to have achieved RC-pentafecta. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to measure predictors for achieving RC-pentafecta. We analyzed the influence of this RC-pentafecta on survival, and the impact ofthe surgical experience. RESULTS: Since 2014, 104 patients who had completed at least 12 months of follow-up were included. Over a mean follow-up of 18 months, a LN yield ≥ 16, negative STSMs, absence of major complications at 90 days, and absence of UD-related surgical sequelae and clinical recurrence at ≤ 12 months were observed in 56%, 96%, 85%, 81%, and 91% of patients, respectively, resulting in a RC-pentafecta rate of 39.4%. Multivariate analysis showed that age was an independent predictor of pentafecta achievement (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90. 0.99; p = 0.04). The surgeon experience had an impact on the validation of the criteria. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that the RC-pentafecta is reproducible and could be externally used for the outcome assessment after RARC with ICUD. Therefore, the RC-pentafecta could be a useful tool to assess surgical success and its impact on different outcomes.

[Survival analysis of adjustable continence therapy device (ACT®/proACT®): a new message for patients]. / Étude de survie des ballonnets ACT®/proACT® : un nouveau message pour les patients.

INTRODUCTION: The main purpose was to assess the failure free survival of adjustable continence therapy ACT®/proACT® after continence was obtained and to seek factors influencing it. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective, single-center survival study of peri-urethral balloons implanted between 2007 and 2014. Efficacy was defined by the wearing of 0 or 1 safety pad per day. The primary end point was time to failure estimated from a survival curve (Kaplan-Meier). Factors that could influence failure free survival were: sex, age, radiotherapy, diabetes, number of pad before surgery, number of balloon inflation, early complications, mixed urinary incontinence and previous ACT®/proACT® placement. They were analyzed in a COX regression. RESULTS: Of the 82 peri-urethral balloons placed, 41 were effective in 36 patients. The failure free survival was 50 % at 60 months. Radiotherapy, diabetes and previous peri-urethral balloon placement appeared to significantly decrease survival (P=0.031;P=0.025;P=0.029, respectively). Fifteen peri-urethral balloons were still effective at the last follow-up, one was lost to follow-up and 25 required re-intervention for loss of efficacy. The main cause of efficacy loss was system leakage. Fifty-two percent of peri-urethral balloons that became ineffective were replaced by new peri-urethral balloons and 28% by an artificial urinary sphincter. CONCLUSION: Patients who became continent with adjustable continence therapy (ACT®/proACT®) had a 50 % new surgery probability at 5 years for a loss of efficacy. Radiotherapy seems to be the main risk factor of the efficacy loss. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.