Lasers in laparoscopic and robotic surgery: is there a need for them.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The application of lasers in treating urological disorders is a developing area. In the laparoscopic and robotic surgery, laser energy is not so popular as in the treatment of stone disease and benign prostatic hyperplasia. The aim of this review is to clarify the current status of laser applications in laparoscopic and robotic urology. RECENT FINDINGS: Laser welding of the pyeloureteral anastomosis is not performed in routine clinical practice. Most investigation of laser applications in laparoscopic and robotic urology has centered on laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Much less work has been done with regard to lower tract laser laparoscopic and robotic applications. However, laser laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has been investigated. SUMMARY: Current literature regarding lasers in laparoscopic and robotic surgery is extremely limited. Available data consist mostly of small cohorts providing a low level of evidence. Even though initial studies with currently available laser modalities demonstrated promising results, several drawbacks in each technique need to be addressed before being widely accepted as a standard care. Despite investigation, laser usage during laparoscopic and robotic urological procedures has not gained widespread acceptance and remains experimental at this time.

Randomized, open-label, tolterodine-controlled, comparative study of the novel antimuscarinic agent imidafenacin in patients with overactive bladder.

BACKGROUND: The role of the selective antimuscarinic imidafenacin in Caucasian patients with overactive bladder (OAB) has not been previously assessed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of imidafenacin 0.2 mg vs tolterodine 4 mg per day in patients with OAB. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study was a randomized, open-label, tolterodine-controlled, comparative multicenter trial of 300 randomized patients with OAB symptoms for 12 weeks with full analysis of 289 patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Based on 5-day bladder diaries, the primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the mean number of micturitions per day. The secondary endpoints were the change in the mean incontinence episodes, voiding frequency, the OAB Awareness Tool score, and the European Quality of Life Questionnaire (EQ-5D) score. The superiority of tolterodine over imidafenacin in the mean number of micturitions/24 hours was the null hypothesis. RESULTS AND LIMITATION: The median age was 46.6 years, and 82% of patients were female. After treatment, the change in the mean number of incontinence episodes was -2.1 ± 2.2 in the imidafenacin group and -1.9 ± 1.8 in the tolterodine group (P = .001). The change in the mean number of daytime incontinence episodes was -1.7 ± 1.7 and -1.5 ± 1.4 ( P = .01). The OAB Awareness Tool score decreased by 14.2 ± 8.5 and 14.5 ± 8.0, respectively ( P = 0.5). Most adverse events were mild and resolved without treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical efficacy and safety of imidafenacin are not inferior to those of tolterodine for the treatment of Caucasian patients with OAB. PATIENT SUMMARY: Imidafenacin is as effective as tolterodine for the treatment of OAB.