Penoscrotal inflatable penile prosthesis recipients often fully recover from pain at two weeks following placement.

The symptoms and duration of pain following inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery remains poorly understood. We characterize postoperative pain following penoscrotal 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis placement in patients managed with a standardized pain management protocol. This is a single-center prospective analysis of 96 virginal penoscrotal 3-piece IPP recipients (9/2019 to 9/2021) excluding patients with chronic pain, IPPs performed with alternative approaches or concomitantly with other surgeries and those with infections. Standardized pain questionnaire was performed by phone on post-operative day (POD) 2, 7, 14, and 30. The primary outcome was self-reported pain scores, measured by pain score 0-10 (0 = no pain, 10 = unbearable, "worst pain you have ever felt") at various locations (incision, penile, scrotal, abdominal) over the first 30 days postoperatively. A majority of pain reported was outside the scrotal area with 67.6% of complaints in the shaft, glans, abdomen and incision. From POD2 to POD30, there was a significant decrease in severe pain from 46.2 to 11.1% (p = 0.05) with an increase in mild pain from 23.1 to 62.4% (p = 0.05). Roughly half of the participants (47.9%, n = 46) reported no pain by POD14. Penoscrotal IPP recipients often fully recover from pain at the two-week period following surgery and those with lingering discomfort predominantly complain of penile shaft and glans pain.

The impact of genomic biomarkers on a clinical risk prediction model for upgrading/upstaging among men with favorable-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The challenge of distinguishing indolent from aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) complicates decision-making for men considering active surveillance (AS). Genomic classifiers (GCs) may improve risk stratification by predicting end points such as upgrading or upstaging (UG/US). The aim of this study was to assess the impact of GCs on UG/US risk prediction in a clinicopathologic model. METHODS: Participants had favorable-risk PCa (cT1-2, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≤15 ng/mL, and Gleason grade group 1 [GG1]/low-volume GG2). A prediction model was developed for 864 men at the University of California, San Francisco, with standard clinical variables (cohort 1), and the model was validated for 2267 participants from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry (cohort 2). Logistic regression was used to compute the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to develop a prediction model for UG/US at prostatectomy. A GC (Oncotype Dx Genomic Prostate Score [GPS] or Prolaris) was then assessed to improve risk prediction. RESULTS: The prediction model included biopsy GG1 versus GG2 (odds ratio [OR], 5.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.73-9.10); PSA (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.20; per 1 ng/mL), percent positive cores (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02; per 1%), prostate volume (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; per mL), and age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07; per year), with AUC 0.70 (cohort 1) and AUC 0.69 (cohort 2). GPS was associated with UG/US (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; p < .01) and AUC 0.72, which indicates a comparable performance to the prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: GCs did not substantially improve a clinical prediction model for UG/US, a short-term and imperfect surrogate for clinically relevant disease outcomes.

Defining the incidence and management of postoperative scrotal hematoma after primary and complex three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis surgery.

Scrotal hematoma is a challenging complication of penile prosthesis surgery. We characterize the risk of hematoma formation with implementation of standardized techniques to mitigate hematomas and assess for any associated factors in a large multi-institutional penile implant cohort. This was a retrospective review from February 2018 to December 2020 of all patients who underwent inflatable penile prosthesis implantation at 2 high volume implant centers. Cases were defined as "complex" if they involved revision, salvage with removal/replacement, or were performed with concurrent penile, scrotal or intra-abdominal surgeries. The incidence of scrotal hematoma among primary and complex IPP recipients was measured and modifiable and innate risk factors associated with hematoma formation within the two cohorts were tracked. Of 246 men who underwent penile prosthesis surgery, 194 (78.9%) patients underwent primary implantation and 52 (21.1%) were complex. Although hematoma formers in the complex group had comparable drain outputs to primary patients on postoperative day 0 (66.8cc ± 32.5 vs 48.4 ± 27.7, p = 0.470) and postoperative day 1 (40.3cc ± 20.8vs 21.8 ± 11.3 p = 0.125), hematomas in the complex group had a higher propensity for OR evacuation (p = 0.03). Difference in duration of temporary device inflation between 2 (64, 26%) and 4 weeks (182, 74%) did not contribute to hematoma formation (p = 0.562). The incidence of postoperative hematoma formation in complex cases was 9.6% (5/52) and 3.6% in primary cases (7/194) (HR = 2.61, p = 0.072). Complex IPP surgery performed for revision or with ancillary procedures are more likely to result in clinically significant hematomas that require surgical management, suggesting a need for heightened caution in managing these individuals.

Controversies in management of the bladder cuff at nephroureterectomy.

Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) accounts for roughly 5% of urothelial carcinomas. Historically, the gold standard for high-risk or bulky low-risk UTUC was an open radical nephroureterectomy with formal bladder cuff excision (BCE). The development of novel endoscopic, laparoscopic, and robotic techniques has transformed this operation, yet no level I evidence exists at present that demonstrates the superiority of one strategy over another. While new approaches to nephroureterectomy in the last decade have shifted the management paradigm to decrease the morbidity of surgery, controversy continues to surround the approach to the distal ureter and bladder cuff. Debate continues within the urologic community over which surgical approach is best when managing UTUC and how various approaches impact clinical outcomes such as intravesical recurrence, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and disease-specific mortality (DSM). When focusing on the existing treatment algorithm, key metrics of quality include (I) removal of the entire specimen en bloc, (II) minimizing the risk of tumor and urine spillage, (III) R0 resection, and (IV) water-tight closure allowing for early use of prophylactic intravesical chemotherapy. In the absence of robust evidence demonstrating a single superior approach, the urologic surgeon should base decisions on technical comfort and each patient's particular clinical circumstance.