Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes Between Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate and Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy

Objectives: To compare perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RSP) for benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH).Methods: Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were compared between 600 patients undergoing HoLEP and 32 patients undergoing RSP at two separate academic institutions between 2008 and 2015.Results: Patients undergoing HoLEP and RSP had comparable ages (71 vs 71, p = 0.96) and baseline American Urological Association Symptom Scores (20 vs 24, p = 0.21). There was no difference in mean specimen weight (96 g vs 110 g, p = 0.15). Mean operative time was reduced in the HoLEP cohort (103 minutes vs 274 minutes, p < 0.001). Patients undergoing HoLEP had lesser decreases in hemoglobin, decreased transfusions rates, shorter hospital stays, and decreased mean duration of catheterization. There was no difference in the rate of complications Clavien grade 3 or greater (p = 0.33).Conclusions: HoLEP and RSP are both efficacious treatments for large gland BPH. In expert hands, HoLEP appears to have a favorable perioperative profile. Further studies are necessary to compare long-term efficacy, cost, and learning curve influences, especially as minimally invasive approaches become more widespread

The effect of radiation therapy on post-prostatectomy urinary function

AimWe sought to evaluate the effect of radiation therapy on post-prostatectomy urinary quality of life in prostate cancer patients.BackgroundIn some men with non-metastatic prostate cancer, radiation therapy is indicated following prostatectomy. The radiation toxicity and quality of life considerations are unique in the post-prostatectomy setting.Materials and methodsA total of 106 patients receiving post-prostatectomy radiation therapy completed the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire before radiation and at 2-year follow-up. The primary outcomes of this study were the urinary domain summary score and subscale scores. Planned analysis was performed based on time interval from prostatectomy to radiation therapy.ResultsAmong the 106 patients analyzed, the mean urinary domain summary score worsened at 2-year follow-up after radiation therapy, lowering from 77.23–72.51 (p = 0.0085). Similar worsening was observed in the subscales of function (p = 0.003), bother (p = 0.0397), and incontinence (p = 0.0003). Urinary incontinence showed the greatest observable change among subscales. While the summary score worsened (p = 0.0031) among patients receiving radiation therapy more than 1 year after prostatectomy, it did not show statistically significant change in those treated 1 year or less after prostatectomy.ConclusionOur results demonstrate that post-prostatectomy radiation therapy is associated with modest declines in reportable urinary quality of life. Patients receiving radiation therapy more than 1 year after prostatectomy showed greater worsening of urinary quality of life, which indicates that there may be no functional advantage to delaying radiation therapy beyond the initial postoperative period

Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation

Peer reviewe

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016