Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Repair of Kidney Transplant Ureteral Strictures.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of robotic-assisted transplant ureteral repair (RATUR) for the management of kidney transplant ureteral strictures (TUS). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 41 consecutive patients who underwent RATUR for TUS at multiple tertiary referral centers between January 2016 and December 2022. RATUR was performed utilizing a robotic-assisted transperitoneal approach. The primary outcome was stricture recurrence rate and secondary outcomes included postoperative complicate rate, determining factors impacting with allograft functional recovery, and rate of conversion to open surgery. Categorical and continuous variables are displayed as total number (Percentage) or median [Interquartile Range], respectively. Pearson correlation coefficient was utilized to assess categorical variable correlation with creatinine. RESULTS: The median age was 56years [44,66]. The female-to-male ratio was 1.1:1. Approximately 66% of patients were dialysis-dependent prior to kidney transplantation. TUS was identified at a median time of 4months [2, 15.5] following kidney transplant. Median stricture length was 2 cm [1.22, 2.9 cm]. There were no TUS recurrences with a median follow-up of 36months [24,48]. There were 3 Clavien grade 2 and 1 Clavien grade 3 complications (9.5%). No baseline characteristics or preoperative diagnostics were correlated with a long-term decline in renal allograft function. CONCLUSION: RATUR has excellent and durable outcomes with low complication rates. These findings encourage the use of a minimally invasive definitive repair as a first-line treatment option for the management of TUS.

Are adverse events during surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia device related? A review of the MAUDE database.

PURPOSE: The Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database contains anonymous, voluntary medical device reports. A review of device-related adverse events associated with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia surgeries was completed. The objective was to evaluate the occurrence and contributing factors to clinically significant complications in a cohort of patients electing to undergo surgical intervention for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. METHODS: The Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database was queried for "Aquablation, Greenlight Laser, Holmium Laser, Morcellator, Water Vapor Thermal Therapy, Loop Resection, and Prostatic Urethral Lift" from 2018 through 2021. A complication classification system (Level I-IV) based on the Clavien-Dindo system was used to categorize events. These events were then correlated with procedural technology malfunctions and classified as "device related" and "non-device related." Chi squared analysis was performed to identify associations between procedural technology and complication classification distribution. RESULTS: A total of 873 adverse events were identified. The adverse events were classified into level I (minimal harm) versus levels II-IV (clinically significant). Aquablation (p < 0.017) and Water Vapor Thermal Therapy (p < 0.012) were associated with a higher proportion of reports with Level II-IV complications compared with other procedure types. Level II-IV complications were not associated with a reported device related malfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Aquablation and water vapor thermal therapy demonstrated noteworthy clinically significant complications which were not driven by device-related malfunctions.

The Impact of Standard vs Early Apical Release Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate Technique on Postoperative Incontinence and Quality of Life.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the difference in postoperative incontinence and quality of life comparing standard vs early apical release (EAR) Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to identify patients who underwent HoLEP from December 2021 to December 2022 at a single tertiary referral center with two participating consultant urologists. Patients were assessed with questionnaires and evaluated clinically. We performed propensity score matching with a logistic regression and a 1:1 matching method. A propensity score-adjusted logistic regression (PSRM) was performed to compare the pads per day between surgical techniques controlling for age, prostate size, preoperative survey data, uroflow, and postvoid residual. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients underwent HoLEP, of which 60 patients were treated with EAR and 54 patients with standard technique. EAR technique demonstrated shorter operative times (P = .046). The EAR cohort demonstrated improved AUASS (P = .034, P = .001), QOL (P = .001, P <.001), and continence rates (P <.001, P <.001) at 6 and 12weeks postoperatively. PSRM showed that the standard HoLEP increased the risk of requiring ≥2 pads per day 4.2x (P = .031, HR 95%, CI=1.16, 15.35) and 8.3x (P <.001, HR 95% CI 3.17, 21.6) at 6 and 12weeks postoperatively. CONCLUSION: EAR technique promoted earlier return of continence and improved quality of life within 6weeks of surgery.

Toxicity and outcomes after external beam irradiation for prostate cancer in patients with prior holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: Early experience.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is commonly performed in patients with significant bladder outlet obstruction. However, there are few reports on the toxicity of external beam irradiation (RT) for prostate cancer in patients after prior HoLEP. In this study, we evaluate the side effects and treatment outcomes of RT after HoLEP. MATERIALS/METHODS: Eighteen patients who had HoLEP and subsequently received RT for prostate cancer were included. Data collected included patient and disease characteristics, urinary function, and radiation dose. Acute and late urinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) side effects were evaluated. Disease control and survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 18 months (range: 4-46 months). Median prostate volume was 107 ml before HoLEP and 24 ml after HoLEP. Median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 17 (range: 5-32) before HoLEP. Median decline in IPSS score after HoLEP was 7 (range: -2-21). On uroflow study, peak flow rate, and post-void residual were significantly improved after HoLEP. After radiation, peak flow rate and average flow rate showed a decline but remained significantly improved compared to pre-HoLEP measurements. Maximum acute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) adverse events were 12 grade 1 and 3 grade 2 for GU, and 3 grade 1 for GI, respectively. Maximum late adverse events were 13 grade 1 and 2 grade 2 for GU, and all grade 0 for GI, respectively. At last follow-up, there were 8 grade 1 and 1 grade 2 late GU, and 3 grade 1 late GI adverse events, respectively. There was no significant increase in urinary incontinence after RT compared to before RT. The 18-month biochemical control, local control, distant control rates were 78%, 94%, and 80%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received RT as definitive treatment for prostate cancer after prior HoLEP had low risk of serious acute and late side effects. HoLEP can be safely performed and should be considered in patients with significant bladder outlet obstruction and large prostate volume before RT.

Median lobe vs. complete gland holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: A propensity score matching.

INTRODUCTION: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition affecting aging men. While holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is one of the most effective treatments for BPH, variations of the procedure, such as median lobe HoLEP (MLHoLEP), are rarely reported. Here, we report our institution's experience with partial HoLEP. METHODS: Our institutional prospective database was queried for patients having undergone median or individual lateral lobe enucleation between 2007 and 2018. A control cohort of patients who underwent standard HoLEP (sHoLEP) was identified using 1:2 propensity score matching based on age, prostate size, maximal flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual volume (PVR), and American Urological Association symptom score (AUAss). Three and 12-month AUAss, PVR, and Qmax were compared. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were identified as having undergone MLHoLEP. At three-month followup, AUAss (p<0.01) and incontinence rates (p=0.045) were lower for MLHoLEP patients, in addition to them having shorter operative (36.5 mins vs. 64.5 mins, p<0.01) and enucleation (13.8 mins vs. 37 mins, p<0.01) times as compared to sHoLEP patients. No difference was noted between MLHoLEP and sHoLEP cohorts with respect to age, prostate volume, PVR, or Qmax. Significant improvement in AUAss, PVR, and Q max from baseline to three and 12 months was noted overall in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: MLHoLEP could provide a surgical option with reduced operative time, quicker improvement in AUAss, and restored continence in appropriately selected patients. Ultimately, MLHoLEP represents a safe and effective treatment option to select patients who may not be eligible for or face potential morbidity concerns associated with sHoLEP.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate using Moses 2.0 vs non-Moses: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the enucleation efficiency of Moses 2.0 with non-Moses technology in patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A double-blinded, randomised study of patients undergoing HoLEP at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, using the Lumenis Pulse™ 120H laser system. Patients were randomised to either right lobe enucleation using Moses 2.0 and left lobe enucleation using non-Moses, or the opposite. The primary outcome was individual lobe enucleation efficiency. Secondary outcomes included individual lobe laser time, laser energy, individual enucleation and haemostasis laser energies, and fibre burn back. Two independent reviewers watched videos of the procedures and provided a subjective evaluation of the technologies. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients were included in the study. For the entire cohort, Moses 2.0 had less fibre degradation (3.5 vs 16.8 mm, P < 0.01) compared to non-Moses. When HoLEP procedures were performed by an expert, Moses 2.0 resulted in shorter enucleation time (21 vs 36.7 min, P = 0.016) and higher enucleation efficiency (1.75 vs 1.05 g/min, P = 0.05) compared to non-Moses. When HoLEP was performed by trainees, the Moses 2.0 cohort had a shorter haemostasis laser time (4.1 vs 9 min, P = 0.035) compared to the non-Moses. Fibre degradation was lower with Moses 2.0 compared to non-Moses for both experts and trainees. Moses 2.0 received a higher score than the standard technology for the incision sharpness, fibre control, tissue separation, tissue damage, haemostasis, visibility, and charring. The overall inter-observer correlation coefficient was 0.63. CONCLUSION: Moses 2.0 has higher enucleation efficiency compared to non-Moses when used by experts. The subjective evaluation favoured Moses 2.0.

The Clinical Implication of Incidental Prostatic Amyloidosis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinicopathologic features of patients with incidental prostatic amyloidosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We queried the genitourinary pathology database at Mayo Clinic Arizona for prostate specimens which showed amyloid deposits. Congo red stain was used for the diagnosis of amyloidosis and amyloid subtype was performed analysis using Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. We reviewed the patient's medical charts for past or subsequent diagnosis of systemic amyloidosis and clinical course. RESULTS: Prostatic amyloidosis was identified in 7 patients between 2008-2018. Median age was 79 years (range 69-84) and median follow-up was 5 years (range 0-11). Benign prostate tissue was found in 4 patients, and prostate cancer was diagnosed in 3 patients. Amyloid subtyping was available in 6 patients and was consistent with Amyloid transthyretin Amyloidosis. Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry did not detect an amino acid sequence abnormality in the transthyretin protein in any of the patients. Five of 6 patients were diagnosed with cardiac amyloidosis, which preceded and followed the diagnosis of prostatic amyloidosis in 1 and 4 patients, respectively. Of these 4 patients, 2 were diagnosed immediately and as a consequence of the diagnosis of prostatic amyloidosis, and the remaining 2 3 and 4 years later. CONCLUSION: Incidental prostatic amyloidosis should prompt systemic and cardiac evaluation for amyloidosis. In patients with suspected cardiac amyloidosis, prior prostate specimens should be reviewed for the presence of amyloidosis.

Robot Assisted Radical Cystectomy vs Open Radical Cystectomy: Over 10 years of the Mayo Clinic Experience.

OBJECTIVES: There is scant information about intermediate / long-term comparative outcomes between robot assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and open radical cystectomy (ORC). The purpose of this study is to present survival and oncological outcomes between bladder cancer patients who undergo RARC vs. ORC with an overall median follow-up of over 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A query of all patients who underwent radical cystectomy between January, 2007 and January, 2018 at Mayo Clinic Arizona yielded 595 patients. After excluding cystectomy performed for nonmalignant indication, cancer secondary to nonbladder primary, and cancers with grossly metastatic disease at the time of surgery, 481 patients remained. Data was collected on patient demographics, preoperative information, operative details, complications, and follow-up. Statistical analyses were generated using SPSS 22.0. RESULTS: In 481 total patients, 203 (42.2%) underwent RARC and 278 (57.8%) underwent ORC. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 66 months. The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 70.8% vs. 64.7% and the 10-year RFS was 69.6% vs. 62.7% for the RARC vs. ORC, respectively (P = 0.135). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 58.9% vs. 57.7% and the 10-year OS was 39.9% vs. 45.6% for RARC vs. ORC patients, respectively (P = 0.466). There were no differences in any recurrence patterns, including the incidence of atypical recurrences (1.5% vs. 1.8% [P = 0.786], respectively). A Cox-proportional hazards model was fitted that included independent predictors of RFS and OS. The results revealed no difference in RFS (HR 1.235, 95% CI: 0.832-1.833, P = 0.295) or OS (HR 0.790, 95% CI: 0.550-1.135, P = 0.202) between the respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence free survival, OS, and recurrence patterns are similar in bladder cancer patients who undergo either RARC or ORC.

Role of robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in malignant mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis: case series and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The management of malignant mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis (MMTVT) is not clearly defined. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection has been reported as a potential management option. Herein we present our experience with robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RARPLND) in our series of patients with MMTVT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Mayo Clinic cancer registry was queried from 1972-present for all patients who had a diagnosis of MMTVT. Six patients were identified, five of whom were treated with RPLND, where four underwent RARPLND. RESULTS: In five patients who underwent RPLND, the median age was 50 years (IQR 34-51). Four patients originally presented with right sided symptomatic hydroceles, while one presented with right sided chronic epididymitis. Orchiectomy (one simple, two inguinal radical) was performed in three patients prior to presentation. Preoperative cross-sectional imaging, including PET-CT scan in three patients, was negative for lymphadenopathy or metastasis. RARPLND was performed in 4/5 (80%) cases and concomitant hemiscrotectomy in 4/5 (80%) cases. Full bilateral template was performed in three patients and right modified template was performed in the remaining two. Median lymph node yield was 29 (IQR 22-32) and median blood loss was 275 cc (IQR 200-300). Positive retroperitoneal lymph nodes were found in 3/5 (60%) cases. All patients who underwent RARPLND were discharged home on postoperative day one. Mean follow up was 27 months (range 3-47). No patients recurred. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the approach, RPLND may provide a diagnostic benefit in patients who present with MMTVT, with the robotic approach affording a potentially expedited recovery.

Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: technique and initial case series of 18 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of the first 18 patients treated with robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RA-RPLND) for non-seminomatous germ cell tumours (NSGCT) and paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) at our institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between March 2008 and May 2013, 17 patients underwent RA-RPLND for NSGCT and one for paratesticular RMS. Data were collected retrospectively on patient demographics, preoperative tumour characteristics, and perioperative outcomes including open conversion rate, lymph node (LN) yield, rate of positive LNs, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of stay (LOS). Perioperative outcomes were compared between patients receiving primary RA-RPLND vs post-chemotherapy RA-RPLND. Medium-term outcomes of tumour recurrence rate and maintenance of antegrade ejaculation were recorded. RESULTS: RA-RPLND was completed robotically in 15 of 18 (83%) patients. LNs were positive in eight of 18 patients (44%). The mean LN yield was 22 LNs. For cases completed robotically, the mean operative time was 329 min, EBL was 103 mL, and LOS was 2.4 days. At a mean (range) follow-up of 22 (1-58) months, there were no retroperitoneal recurrences and two of 17 (12%) patients with NSGCT had pulmonary recurrences. Antegrade ejaculation was maintained in 91% of patients with a nerve-sparing approach. Patients receiving primary RA-RPLND had shorter operative times compared with those post-chemotherapy (311 vs 369 min, P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in LN yield (22 vs 18 LNs, P = 0.34), EBL (100 vs 313 mL, P = 0.13), or LOS (2.75 vs 2.2 days, P = 0.36). CONCLUSION: This initial selected case series of RA-RPLND shows that the procedure is safe, reproducible, and feasible for stage I-IIB NSGCT and RMS in the hands of experienced robotic surgeons. Larger studies are needed to confirm the diagnostic and therapeutic utility of this technique.

Use of antegrade reverse-thermosensitive polymer during percutaneous nephrolithotomy to prevent fragment migration: initial experience.

INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility and initial performance of Backstop reverse thermosensitive polymer to prevent antegrade stone fragment migration during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Backstop was used during 5 percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures to prevent stone migration into the ureter. Backstop was placed into the upper ureter under direct vision with a flexible nephroscope or with fluoroscopic guidance. Ultrasonic lithotripsy was then performed. Each patient was evaluated for the following: stone-free rate (postoperative computed tomography), rate of antegrade fragment migration, need for subsequent procedures, and complication rate. The average stone burden was 806 mm(2). Backstop was successfully deployed in all cases. Average procedure length was 106 minutes. Three patients were rendered stone free, 1 patient retained 2 1-mm fragments in the kidney, and 1 patient retained multiple fragments in the kidney, distal ureter, and bladder, all of which were <3 mm. No patient required a secondary procedure, and there were no adverse events. CONCLUSION: Backstop appears to be feasible, safe, and easy to use. Backstop should be administered every 45 minutes for longer cases, and warm saline should be used during the case to prevent dissolution. A randomized controlled trial with a larger study population is needed to further evaluate these initial findings.