Double-Layered Hand-Sewn versus Stapled Intestinal Anastomosis in Patients Who Underwent Ileal Urinary Diversion in Radical Cystectomy: A Comparative and Cost Effective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Intestinal anastomosis can be performed by hand suturing (single layer or double layer) or by a mechanical suturing machine. The aim of the study was to compare complications, operative time, and costs of the intestinal anastomosis techniques. METHODS: A retrospective comparative study was conducted including patients who underwent radical cystectomy and uretero-ileo-cutaneostomy or vescica ileale Padovana orthotopic neobladder. Double-layered hand-sewn intestinal anastomosis (HS-IA) were performed using Vicryl stitches. Mechanical-stapled intestinal anastomosis (MS-IA) were performed with a mechanical stapler. RESULTS: Data of 195 patients who underwent were collected. 100 (51.3%) patients underwent HS-IA and 95 (48.7%) patients underwent MS-IA. Considering the complications classified according to Clavien-Dindo, a statistical difference with higher incidence for grade one in the HS-IA both in the ileal conduit group and in the neobladder one than the MS-IA (15.8% and 8.7%, respectively, in HS-IA vs. 1.7% and none in MS-IA). There is not a significant difference in time to flatus and time to defecation. Difference is recorded in the ileal conduit groups for the length of stay (10 days, range 9-12 with HS-IA vs. 13 days range 12-16 days with MS-IA (p < 0.001). The cost of the suture thread used for a single operation was 0.40 euros, whereas the overall cost of a disposable mechanical stapler and one refill was 350.00 €. CONCLUSION: Both HS-IA and MS-IA are safe and effective for patients. The cost for the stapling device is 350 €, in contrast, the cost for Vicryl sutures is negligible.

Preliminary Results of ERAS Protocol in a Single Surgeon Prospective Case Series.

Background and Objectives: The aim was to compare the intra and postoperative outcomes between the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol versus the standard of care protocol (SCP) in patients who underwent radical cystectomy performed by a single surgeon. Materials and Methods: A retrospective comparative study was conducted including patients who underwent radical cystectomy from 2017 to 2020. Length of stay (LOS), incidence of ileus, early postoperative complications, and number of re-hospitalizations within 30 days were considered as primary comparative outcomes of the study. Results: Data were collected for 91 patients who underwent cystectomy, and 70 and 21 patients followed the SCP and ERAS protocol, respectively. The mean age of the patients was 70.6 (SD 9.5) years. Although there was a statistically significant difference in time to flatus (TTF) [3 (2.7−3) vs. 1 (1−2 IQR) days, p < 0.001, in the SC hospital and in the ERAS center respectively], no difference was reported in time to first defecation (TTD) [5 (4−6) vs. 4 (3−5.8), p = 0.086 respectively]. The median LOS in the SCP group was 12 (IQR 11−13) days vs. 9 (IQR 8−13 p = 0.024). In the postoperative period, patients reported 22 complications (37% in SCP and 42.8% in ERAS group, p = 0.48). Conclusions: The study reveals how even partial adherence to the ERAS protocols leads to similar outcomes when compared to SCP. As a single surgeon series, our study confirmed the role of surgeons in reducing complications and improving surgical outcomes.

Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy.

Our study aimed to compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) when adopting different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens. A multi-institutional cohort of 1150 patients who underwent TRUSBx was retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed between 2017 and 2019 (before and after the EMA warning about the use of fluoroquinolones for the antibiotic prophylaxis of patient candidates to TRUSBx). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of infective complications, including sepsis and/or fever. The population was stratified according to the antibiotic prophylaxis adopted: fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, prulifloxacin), cephalosporins (cefixime, ceftriaxone) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Univariable and multivariable binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) testing of the risk of infective complication after adjusting for each prebiopsy covariate. In total, 478 (41.6%) patients received fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis. Among these, 443 (38.5%), 25 (2.2%) and 10 (0.9%) patients received levofloxacin prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin and prulifloxacin, respectively while 14.6% received cefixime, 20.7% received the comedication of ceftriaxone/fosfomycin and 23.1% received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolone regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of infective complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03−0.48, p = 0.003 and OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06−0.43, p < 0.001, respectively). The ceftriaxone/fosfomycin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04−0.92, p = 0.04) and fluoroquinolone (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00−0.70, p = 0.048) prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk of infective sequelae. Fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of infective complications after TRUSBx compared to other prophylaxis regimens although its clinical application was recently forbidden by European Medical Agency restrictions.