Oncological outcomes after attempted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (NSRP) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer are comparable to standard non-NSRP: a longitudinal long-term propensity-matched single-centre study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term safety of nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (NSRP) in men with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) by comparing survival outcomes, disease recurrence, the need for additional therapy, and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing NSRP to those having non-NSRP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included consecutive patients at a single, academic centre who underwent open RP for high-risk PCa, defined as preoperative prostate-specific antigen level of > 20 ng/mL and/or postoperative International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 4 or 5 (i.e., Gleason score ≥ 8) and/or ≥pT3 and/or pN1 assessing the RP and lymph node specimen. We calculated a propensity score and used inverse probability of treatment weighting to match baseline characteristics of patients with high-risk PCa who underwent NSRP vs non-NSRP. We analysed oncological outcome as time-to-event and calculated hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: A total of 726 patients were included in this analysis of which 84% (n = 609) underwent NSRP. There was no evidence for the positive surgical margin rate being different between the NSRP and non-NSRP groups (47% vs 49%, P = 0.64). Likewise, there was no evidence for the need for postoperative radiotherapy being different in men who underwent NSRP from those who underwent non-NSRP (HR 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.15). NSRP did not impact the risk of any recurrence (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73-1.34, P = 0.09) and there was no evidence for survival being different in men who underwent NSRP to those who underwent non-NSRP (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39-1.08). There was also no evidence for the cancer-specific survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29-1.11) or progression-free survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73-1.34) being different between the groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with high-risk PCa, NSRP can be attempted without compromising long-term oncological outcomes provided a comprehensive assessment of objective (e.g., T Stage) and subjective (e.g., intraoperative appraisal of tissue planes) criteria are conducted.

Same day discharge for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective cohort study documenting an Australian approach.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of robotic surgical systems has significantly impacted urological surgery, arguably more so than other surgical disciplines. The focus of our study was length of hospital stay - patients have traditionally been discharged day 1 post-robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), however, during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and consequential resource limitations, our centre has facilitated a cohort of same-day discharges with initial success. METHODS: We conducted a prospective tertiary single-centre cohort study of a series of all patients (n = 28) - undergoing RARP between January and April 2021. All patients were considered for a day zero discharge pathway which consisted of strict inclusion criteria. At follow-up, each patient's perspective on their experience was assessed using a validated post-operative satisfaction questionnaire. Data were reviewed retrospectively for all those undergoing RARP over the study period, with day zero patients compared to overnight patients. RESULTS: Overall, 28 patients 20 (71%) fulfilled the objective criteria for day zero discharge. Eleven patients (55%) agreed pre-operatively to day zero discharge and all were successfully discharged on the same day as their procedure. There was no statistically significant difference in age, BMI, ASA, Charlson score or disease volume. All patients indicated a high level of satisfaction with their procedure. Median time from completion of surgery to discharge was 426 min (7.1 h) in the day zero discharge cohort. CONCLUSION: Day zero discharge for RARP appears to deliver high satisfaction, oncological and safety outcomes. Therefore, our study demonstrates early success with unsupported same-day discharge in carefully selected and pre-counselled patients.

A Systematic Review of Intra- and Postoperative Complication Reporting and Grading in Urological Surgery: Understanding the Pitfalls and a Path Forward.

CONTEXT: Surgical outcomes and patient morbidity are often surrogate markers of health care quality and efficiency. These parameters can only be used with confidence if the reporting and grading of intra- and postoperative complications are reliable and reproducible. Without uniformity and regulation, the risk of under-reporting, and thus significant underestimation of the burden of intra- and postoperative morbidity, is high and should be of great concern to the international surgical community. OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality and utility of currently available reporting and classification systems for intra- and postoperative complications, recognise their advantages and pitfalls, discuss the overall implications of these systems for urological surgery, and identify potential solutions for future reporting and classification systems. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple reputable databases and trial registries up to October 25, 2022. Only studies that adhered to predefined inclusion criteria were included. Study selection and data extraction were independently performed by two review authors. The review was performed according to strict methodological guidelines in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 13 papers highlighting 13 various complication systems were critically assessed in this review. All studies proposed an intra- or postoperative complication reporting or grading system that was surgically related. At present, there is no single instrument in clinical practice to account for all relevant complication data. Six of the 13 studies were clinically validated (46%) and only three studies were urology-focused (23%). Meta-analysis was not possible. CONCLUSIONS: Current individual complication tools are flawed, so there is a need for a novel, all-inclusive, specialty-specific reporting and classification system for intra- and postoperative complications. If successfully validated and integrated worldwide, such an instrument would have the potential to play a significant role in reshaping efficiency in health care systems and improving surgical and patient quality of care. PATIENT SUMMARY: Current tools for reporting and classifying complications during and after surgery underestimate how burdensome such complications can be for patients. We summarise the reporting and classification tools currently available, discuss their advantages and drawbacks, and propose potential solutions for future systems. Our review can help in better understanding the changes required for future tools and how to improve overall surgical outcomes for patients.

Lymphovascular Invasion at the Time of Radical Prostatectomy Adversely Impacts Oncological Outcomes.

Lymphovascular invasion, whereby tumour cells or cell clusters are identified in the lumen of lymphatic or blood vessels, is thought to be an essential step in disease dissemination. It has been established as an independent negative prognostic indicator in a range of cancers. We therefore aimed to assess the impact of lymphovascular invasion at the time of prostatectomy on oncological outcomes. We performed a multicentre, retrospective cohort study of 3495 men who underwent radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer. Only men with negative preoperative staging were included. We assessed the relationship between lymphovascular invasion and adverse pathological features using multivariable logistic regression models. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models were created to evaluate the impact of lymphovascular invasion on oncological outcomes. Lymphovascular invasion was identified in 19% (n = 653) of men undergoing prostatectomy. There was an increased incidence of lymphovascular invasion-positive disease in men with high International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade and non-organ-confined disease (p < 0.01). The presence of lymphovascular invasion significantly increased the likelihood of pathological node-positive disease on multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR 15, 95%CI 9.7-23.6). The presence of lymphovascular invasion at radical prostatectomy significantly increased the risk of biochemical recurrence (HR 2.0, 95%CI 1.6-2.4). Furthermore, lymphovascular invasion significantly increased the risk of metastasis in the whole cohort (HR 2.2, 95%CI 1.6-3.0). The same relationship was seen across D'Amico risk groups. The presence of lymphovascular invasion at the time of radical prostatectomy is associated with aggressive prostate cancer disease features and is an indicator of poor oncological prognosis.

Active involvement of nursing staff in reporting and grading complication-intervention events-Protocol and results of the CAMUS Pilot Nurse Delphi Study.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to gain experienced nursing perspective on current and future complication reporting and grading in Urology, establish the CAMUS CCI and quality control the use of the Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC) in nursing staff. Subjects and Methods: The 12-part REDCap-based Delphi survey was developed in conjunction with expert nurse, urologist and methodologist input. Certified local and international inpatient and outpatient nurses specialised in urology, perioperative nurses and urology-specific advanced practice nurses/nurse practitioners will be included. A minimum sample size of 250 participants is targeted. The survey assesses participant demographics, nursing experience and opinion on complication reporting and the proposed CAMUS reporting recommendations; grading of intervention events using the existing CDC and the proposed CAMUS Classification; and rating various clinical scenarios. Consensus will be defined as ≥75% agreement. If consensus is not reached, subsequent Delphi rounds will be performed under Steering Committee guidance. Results: Twenty participants completed the pilot survey. Median survey completion time was 58 min (IQR 40-67). The survey revealed that 85% of nursing participants believe nurses should be involved in future complication reporting and grading but currently have poor confidence and inadequate relevant background education. Overall, 100% of participants recognise the universal demand for reporting consensus and 75% hold a preference towards the CAMUS System. Limitations include variability in nursing experience, complexity of supplemental grades and survey duration. Conclusion: The integration of experienced nursing opinion and participation in complication reporting and grading systems in a modern and evolving hospital infrastructure may facilitate the assimilation of otherwise overlooked safety data. Incorporation of focused teaching into routine nursing education will be essential to ensure quality control and stimulate awareness of complication-related burden. This, in turn, has the potential to improve patient counselling and quality of care.

Effect of local steroids on urethral strictures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Urethral stricture disease is common and has high associated morbidity and impact on quality-of-life. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summarise current evidence on the efficacy of local urethral steroids post-direct vision internal urethrotomy (DVIU) for the treatment of urethral strictures in males. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed using reputable databases and registries, up to 22 February 2022. Only randomised control trials in which participants were randomised to DVIU plus local urethral steroids versus DVIU only were included. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Quality of evidence was rated according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: The search identified seven studies in which 365 participants were randomised to DVIU plus local urethral steroids versus DVIU only. The application of local steroids appeared to reduce recurrence rates (risk ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.90) and time-to-recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.85). Qmax also improved following steroid application (mean difference, 0.82; 95% CI, -1.02-2.66); however, this was not statistically significant. No heterogeneity was identified between included studies for all outcomes. The certainty of evidence was downgraded due to study limitations with a small sample size and unclear risk-of-bias related to insufficient trial information. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to DVIU alone, adjuvant steroids applied to the urethra may reduce risk of recurrence and time-to-recurrence. These findings were statistically significant and likely also clinically significant given low associated costs and risk. However, more robust randomised trials are necessary to enhance the validity of these outcomes.

Protocol for CAMUS Delphi Study: A Consensus on Comprehensive Reporting and Grading of Complications After Urological Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Reproducible assessment of postoperative complications is essential for reliable evaluation of quality of care to enable comparison between healthcare centres and ensure transparent patient counselling. Currently, significant discrepancies exist in complication reporting and grading due to heterogeneous definitions and methodologies. OBJECTIVE: To develop a standardised and reproducible assessment of perioperative complications and overall associated morbidity, to allow for the construction of a uniform language for complication reporting and grading. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The 12-part REDCap-based Delphi survey was developed in conjunction with methodologist review and experienced urologist opinion. International urologists, anaesthetists, and intensive care unit specialists will be included. A minimum sample size of 750 participants (500 urologists and 250 critical care specialities) is targeted. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The survey assesses participant demographics, opinion on complication reporting and the proposed Complications After Major & Minor Urological Surgery (CAMUS) reporting recommendations, grading of intervention events using the existing Clavien-Dindo classification and the proposed CAMUS classification, and rating of various clinical scenarios. Consensus will be defined as ≥75% majority agreement. If consensus is not reached, then subsequent Delphi rounds will be performed under steering committee guidance. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Twenty-one participants completed the draft survey. The median survey completion time was 128 min (interquartile range 88-135). The survey revealed that 90% of participants believe that the current complication classification systems are useful but inaccurate, while 100% of participants believe that there is a universal demand for reporting consensus. Several amendments were made following feedback. Limitations include complexity of the proposed supplemental grades and time to completion of the survey. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure comprehensive and comparable complication reporting and grading across centres worldwide, a conclusive uniform language for complication reporting must be created. We intend to address shortcomings of the current complication reporting and classification systems with a new CAMUS classification system developed through multidisciplinary expert consensus obtained through a Delphi survey. Ultimately, standardisation of urological complication reporting and grading may improve patient counselling and quality of care. PATIENT SUMMARY: The reporting and grading of operative complications that occur during or after an operation and associated costs provide a means to stratify quality of patient care. Current complication reporting and classification systems are not standardised and somewhat inaccurate, and thus significantly underestimate patient morbidity and surgical risk. This Delphi survey will provide the basis for the creation of a uniform complication reporting and grading system. Our new system may allow improved reporting and grading between centres, and ultimately improve patient counselling and care.

There is a Need for a Universal Language in the Reporting and Grading of Complication and Intervention Events to Ensure Comparability and Improvement of Surgical Care.

To enhance the clarity and quality of complication reporting and grading for clinicians and patients, the CAMUS-Collaboration aims to develop the following: (1) a data dictionary; (2) parameters required for reporting; (3) risk-based reporting; (4) nursing and patient opinions; and (5) prospective reporting and grading of short- and long-term complications.