Review of the Role of Robotic Surgery in Male Infertility

Objectives To present the current state of the art in various robot-assisted microsurgical procedures in male infertility and review the latest literature, as the technology in infertility procedures has substantially developed since the incorporation of the Vinci® robotic platform (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Materials and methods The search strategy in this review was conducted in accordance with Cochrane guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE, PubMed and the Cochrane electronic databases (from 2000 to present) to identify studies that included both robotic and male infertility. Results In all, 23 studies were found, 12 of which met our inclusion criteria. Articles were excluded if the study did not include both male infertility and robotics. Conclusions Robotic assistance for microsurgical procedures in male infertility appears to be safe and feasible. It has several advantages including elimination of tremor, multi-view magnification, additional instrument arms, and enhanced dexterity with articulating instrument arms. It also has a short learning curve with a small skin incision. However, larger, prospective studies are needed to establish the clinical benefits over standard microsurgery.PubMedScopu

A randomized controlled trial comparing high and medium power settings for holmium laser enucleation of prostate

Purpose To report the results of a randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes between medium power (MP) and high power (HP) laser settings for HoLEPs. Methods The primary objective was to compare the enucleation efficiency (EE) of HP- HoLEP (80–100 W) with MP-HoLEP (50 − 60 W). The secondary objectives were to compare treatment efficacy and safety between both groups. To show a 25% difference in EE, a sample size of 45 individuals per treatment arm was required (alpha = 0.05; Beta = 0.80). Patients demographic and perioperative factors were analyzed, including EE, hemoglobin drop, duration of catheterization, and length of hospital stay. The surgical outcome was evaluated with AUA symptom score, maximum flow rate, postvoid residual urine, and complications to assess differences between MP and HP HoLEP at baseline, 3 months, 1, and 5 years. Quantitative outcomes were compared with independent sample t tests (2-tailed) and qualitative outcomes were compared with chi-square tests. Results Preoperative data with the exception of indication for surgery were comparable in both treatment arms. There was no statistically significant difference in enucleation efficiency between the HP-HoLEP and MP-HoLEP laser setting (0.97 ± 0.47 vs. 0.85 ± 0.47 gm/min, p  = 0.209). MP laser settings did not increase perioperative or postoperative complications and resulted in durable outcome comparable with HP laser settings at 5-year follow-up. Conclusions MP-HoLEP is safe and efficient and does not compromise the outcome for HoLEPs when compared with HP-HoLEP

Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate Within 6 Weeks of Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy is Safe and Effective

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of performing Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for the treatment of bladder outlet obstruction secondary to an enlarged prostate within 6-weeks of a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy. We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent a HoLEP at our institution, excluding any patients with a confounding urologic history and compared patients who underwent a TRUS-guided 6- or 12-core prostate biopsy, and then underwent a HoLEP within 6 weeks (study group) with all other patients (control group). Our primary outcomes were enucleation efficiency (EE) and perioperative complication rate. Our secondary outcomes included postoperative drop in hemoglobin, duration of catheterization, length of hospital stay, voiding metrics at 1 and 6 months and rate of incidental prostate cancer diagnosed on histopathological examination of prostate specimens after HoLEP. To test for differences between the study and control groups, we performed independent sample t-test (2-tailed) and chi-square tests for quantitative and qualitative variables, respectively. P values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. 552 patients met inclusion criteria and 84 patients underwent prostate biopsy within a period of 45 days prior to HoLEP. Enucleation efficiency was higher in the study group (P = 0.00). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding perioperative complications, postoperative voiding outcomes, or rate of incidental prostate cancer detection. TRUS prostate biopsy performed within 6 weeks of HoLEP does not negatively impact operative difficulty or treatment outcome