Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Radical Prostatectomy: A Turkish Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: The present study examines the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on radical prostatectomy performed as part of localized prostate cancer treatment in Turkey. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was made of the data of 176 patients from 8 centers in Turkey who underwent radical prostatectomy due to localized prostate cancer over the 2 years spanning March 1, 2019, to February 28, 2021. Within this timeframe, March 1, 2019, to February 28, 2020, was denoted the 1-year pre-coronavirus disease 2019 period, while March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, was denoted the 1-year coronavirus disease 2019 period. An analysis was made of whether there was a difference in the number of radical prostatectomies performed for prostate cancer, the time from biopsy to operation, and the biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology between the 2 periods. RESULTS: It was found that the number of radical prostatectomies performed for localized prostate cancer during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was statistically and highly significantly fewer than in the pre-coronavirus disease 2019 period (P <.001). The patients diagnosed with Gleason 3+3 (low risk) prostate cancer were statistically significantly fewer in number in the coronavirus disease 2019 period (P <.001). The pathological Gleason score was upgrading than the biopsy Gleason score in all patients who underwent in both periods (P <.001). When the periods were compared, the pathological involvement determined by lymph node dissection performed during radical prostatectomy was found to be decreased in the coronavirus disease 2019 period, although the difference was not statistically significant (P =.051). CONCLUSION: As with many diseases, the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer have been adversely affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Are Operating Rooms With Laminar Airflow a Risk for Inadvertent Perioperative Hypothermia During Ureterorenoscopic Lithotripsy Under Spinal Anesthesia? A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (IPH), defined as a core temperature <36°C, is common during a surgical procedure and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Laminar (LAS) and conventional airflow systems (CAS) are used frequently for clean microenvironmental surgical areas in operating rooms. In LAS, the cold airflow is directed toward the patient, unlike CAS. Does this airflow in LAS cause heat loss from the patient by convection more than CAS? We aimed to compare the IPH frequencies of these airflow systems on patients who underwent ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy (ureterorenoscopic surgery) under spinal anesthesia. METHODS: The study was a prospective, parallel-group, randomized trial. A total of 246 volunteers were included in the study and divided into group LAS (n = 123) and group CAS (n = 123). Randomization of patients was performed using the closed-envelope method (as 1:1).The tympanic membrane temperature of patients was measured before spinal anesthesia ( T0 ) and then every 15 minutes ( T n ) during the procedure. The IPH ratio and the change of the tympanic temperatures (Δ T ) were recorded (clinical trial number: IRCT20180324039145N5). RESULTS: In total, there were no statistical differences between the IPH ratios of group LAS and group CAS (61.2% [71 of 116] versus 49.6% [57 of 115], respectively; P = 0.075). The IPH ratio was 55.4% (128 of 231). The tympanic temperatures of patients decreased about 0.64°C (0.45°C) at the 30th minute. In both groups, Δ 30 was similar (0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.72 [ P = 0.65]; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.74 [ P = 0.236], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The risk for IPH of both LAS and CAS in the operating room is similar during ureterorenoscopic surgery.

Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: safe even in supracostal access.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine the outcome and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the treatment of renal calculi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 2005 and March 2006, 48 patients were randomized to either an 18F Re-entry nephrostomy tube (group 1) or a 6F Double-J stent (group 2). The two groups were well matched for age, sex, stone size, stone laterality, and number of previous renal procedures. All PCNL procedures were performed by the same surgeon. Postoperative visual analog pain scale (VAS) scores at 8 and 24 hours and 14 days after surgery, in-hospital analgesic use, length of hospital stay, success rate, blood transfusion rate, and postoperative complications were compared for the two groups. RESULTS: The mean hospital stays in groups 1 and 2 were 3.1 and 1.6 days, respectively (P = 0.003). The mean VAS scores 8 and 24 hours after surgery were significantly lower in group 2 than in group 1 (P = 0.001). The postoperative analgesic requirement (diclofenac sodium) was significantly higher in group 1 (263 mg) than in group 2 (120 mg; P = 0.02). The rate of blood transfusion in the two groups was similar (P = NS). There was no difference between the groups in VAS scores on postoperative day 14. The number of supracostal accesses was significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 (P = 0.02). The stone-free rates and the numbers of patients with insignificant residual fragments were similar in the two groups. There was no urine leakage or formation of urinoma in patients with Double-J stents. CONCLUSION: Tubeless PCNL is safe and effective even after supracostal access and is associated with less postoperative pain and a shorter hospital stay.