Is It the Load That Breaks You or the Way You Carry It: How Demanding Is Endourology?

Objective: Surgical outcomes are dependent on multiple factors. Besides patient-related or procedure-related factors, several surgeon-related factors contribute to surgical outcomes. The Surgery Task Load Index (SURG-TLX) questionnaire helps to assess the impact of several stressors on the perceived demands of surgeons during surgery. In this study, we evaluate the applicability of the SURG-TLX questionnaire for endourologic procedures and set a first point of reference. Materials and Methods: Between March and August 2022, 15 urologists and urology residents at a tertiary referral center for endourology completed the SURG-TLX questionnaire after endourologic procedures. After data acquisition, all participants were asked to evaluate the applicability of the questionnaire for endourologic procedures. Results: A total of 130 procedures were included between March and August 2022. Situational stress had the lowest median score (3.0/20; interquartile range [IQR] 2.0-7.0) and task complexity the highest (5.0/20; IQR 3.0-8.0). After weighing, the dimensions showed different proportions when compared with the nonweighted scores. Distractions received the highest score (15.0/100; IQR 7.5-32.8), temporal demands (6.0/100; IQR 3.0-12.5), and situational stress the lowest (6.0/100; IQR 2.0-21.0). This was caused by the higher weight that was attributed to distractions (3.4/5), as opposed to task complexity (2.6/5). In the questionnaire regarding applicability of the SURG-TLX, the overall satisfaction (6.0/10; IQR 5.0-7.0) and clarity (6.5/10; IQR 5.0-7.5) were moderate. The user-friendliness and applicability of the questionnaire were rated high (7.0/10; IQR 5.5-8.0 and 7.0/10; IQR 6.0-8.0, respectively) and task load (3.0/10; IQR 2.0-5.0) and time load (2.0/10; IQR 2.0-3.5) low. Conclusion: The SURG-TLX questionnaire is appropriate to assess the different dimensions of workload during endourologic procedures. Furthermore, the perceived workload during endourologic procedures is relatively low.

Focal vs extended ablation in localized prostate cancer with irreversible electroporation; a multi-center randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Current surgical and ablative treatment options for prostate cancer (PCa) may result in a high incidence of (temporary) incontinence, erectile dysfunction and/or bowel damage. These side effects are due to procedure related effects on adjacent structures including blood vessels, bowel, urethra and/or neurovascular bundle. Ablation with irreversible electroporation (IRE) has shown to be effective and safe in destroying PCa cells and also has the potential advantage of sparing surrounding tissue and vital structures, resulting in less impaired functional outcomes and maintaining men's quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: In this randomized controlled trial (RCT) on IRE in localized PCa, 200 patients with organ-confined, unilateral (T1c-T2b) low- to intermediate-risk PCa (Gleason sum score 6 and 7) on transperineal template-mapping biopsies (TTMB) will be included. Patients will be randomized into focal or extended ablation of cancer foci with IRE. Oncological efficacy will be determined by multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound imaging if available, TTMP and Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) follow-up. Patients will be evaluated up to 5 years on functional outcomes and quality of life with the use of standardized questionnaires. DISCUSSION: There is critical need of larger, standardized RCTs evaluating long-term oncological and functional outcomes before introducing IRE and other focal therapy modalities as an accepted and safe therapeutic option for PCa. This RCT will provide important short- and long-term data and elucidates the differences between focal or extended ablation of localized, unilateral low- to intermediate-risk PCa with IRE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov database registration number NCT01835977. The Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects registration number NL50791.018.14.

[Using rare disease as a research model]. / Zeldzame aandoeningen als onderzoeksmodel.

In Europe, a disease is considered to be rare when its prevalence is less than 5:10,000. With approximately 6000-7000 known rare diseases, 1 out of 20 individuals have such a disease. There is little interest in studying rare diseases because results of such research are only applicable to small groups of people. In addition, research into new drug development is considered not as relevant or financially lucrative as studies into more common diseases. We plead for a different manner of approaching rare diseases; namely, as a research model for human physiology and pathophysiology. The insights into pathophysiologic processes in rare diseases gained by research can subsequently be applied to more common diseases in which these same processes play a role. In addition, better collaboration between those involved in the field of science, such as patients and their support groups, academic hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry, is needed to stimulate research into rare diseases.