Laservaporisation der Prostata: Aktueller Stellenwert des Greenlight- und Diodenlasers

Zusammenfassung: Die Laservaporisation der Prostata hat sich in den letzten 10Jahren als sichere und effektive Alternative zur TURP etabliert. Die photoselektive Vaporisation der Prostata (PVP) hat seit der Einführung des 532nm 80-W-KTP-Lasers im Jahr 2002 maßgeblich zu dieser Entwicklung beigetragen. Ergebnisse prospektiv randomisierter Studien zu PVP und TURP mit einem maximalen Beobachtungszeitraum von 3Jahren zeigen mehrheitlich vergleichbare funktionelle Resultate. Zahlreiche Kohortenstudien belegen zudem die sichere Anwendung der PVP bei Patienten unter oraler Antikoagulation sowie bei großem Prostatavolumen. Zur Laservaporisation der Prostata mit dem Diodenlaser stehen Systeme verschiedener Hersteller zur Verfügung, welche sich in maximaler Laserleistung und Wellenlänge unterschieden. Daher kann nicht von dem Diodenlaser per se gesprochen werden. Bisher fehlen zu Diodenlasern Resultate prospektiv randomisierter Studien im Vergleich mit TURP. In Kohortenstudien oder Vergleichsstudien zur PVP zeichnet sich der Diodenlaser v.a. durch eine ausgeprägte Hämostase aus. Bezüglich der funktionellen Resultate zeigt sich ein uneinheitliches Bild mit teilweise hohen Reoperationsrate

Minimizing complications during retropubic radical prostatectomy - is ureteral stenting necessary?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objectives and aims</p> <p>To avoid damage to the ureters during bladder neck preparation in radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, it may be helpful to insert ureteral stents temporarily or to intravenously administer indigo carmine dye for enhanced visualisation of ureteric orifices. We evaluated our bladder neck preserving technique at radical prostatectomy with regard to ureteric injuries.</p> <p>Patients and methods</p> <p>We analysed 369 consecutive radical prostatectomies operated in our clinic in a bladder neck preserving technique. The following parameters were assessed in this retrospective study: number of prophylactic ureteric stent insertions, application of indigo carmine dye, observed injuries of the ureters by the surgeon, postoperative increase of serum creatinine and postoperative status of kidney ultrasound.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 7/369 prostatectomies (1.90%) a ureteric stent insertion was performed, indigo carmine was not applied to any patient at all, yet no intraoperative injury of a ureter was observed by a surgeon. No revision was necessary due to a ureteral injury within the observation period of one year after surgery. In 17 patients with preoperative normal creatinine value a pathological value was observed on the first postoperative day (mean 1.4 mg/dl). In these patients no consecutive postrenal acute renal failure was observed, no hydronephrosis was monitored by ultrasound and no further intervention was necessary.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Bladder neck preserving operation technique does not implicate the need of prophylactic ureteric stent insertions and has no higher incidence of ureteric injuries.</p

A Systematic Review of Patients’ Values, Preferences, and Expectations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms

Context: Understanding men's values and preferences in the context of personal, physical, emotional, relational, and social factors is important in optimising patient counselling, facilitating treatment decision-making, and improving guideline recommendations. Objective: To systematically review the available evidence regarding the values, preferences, and expectations of men towards the investigation and treatment (conservative, pharmacological, and surgical) of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Evidence acquisition: We searched electronic databases until August 31, 2020 for quantitative and qualitative studies that reported values and preferences regarding the investigation and treatment of LUTS in men. We assessed the quality of evidence and risk of bias using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) approaches. Evidence synthesis: We included 25 quantitative studies, three qualitative studies, and one mixed-methods study recruiting 9235 patients. Most men reported urodynamic testing to be acceptable, despite discomfort or embarrassment, as it significantly informs treatment decisions (low certainty evidence). Men preferred conservative and less risky treatment options, but the preference varied depending on baseline symptom severity and the risk/benefit characteristics of the treatment (moderate certainty). Men preferred pharmacological treatments with a low risk of erectile dysfunction and those especially improving urgency incontinence (moderate certainty). Other important preference considerations included reducing the risk of acute urinary retention or surgery (moderate certainty). Conclusions: Men prefer lower-risk management options that have fewer sexual side effects and are primarily effective at improving urgency incontinence and nocturia. Overall, the evidence was rated to be of low to moderate certainty. This review can facilitate the treatment decision-making process and improve the trustworthiness of guideline recommendations. Patient summary: We thoroughly reviewed the evidence addressing men's values and preferences regarding the management of urinary symptoms and found that minimising adverse effects is particularly important. Further research to understand other factors that matter to men is required. (C) 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy with a small incision for renal cell carcinoma: Comparison with the conventional method

<p>Abstract</p> <p>purpose</p> <p>When retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma was introduced into our institution, we performed a combined small skin incision method. In this method, a small incision was made to approach the retroperitoneal space prior to setting trockers and thereafter a LAPDISC was placed in the incision to start the retroperitoneoscopic procedure. In this study, we compared the outcomes between the combined small skin incision method ("A method" hereinafter) and the conventional method ("B method" hereinafter).</p> <p>material and methods</p> <p>Among the cases of T1N0M0 suspicious renal cell carcinoma treated at Yokohama City University between May 2003 and June 2009, the A method was performed in 51 cases and the B method was performed in 33 cases. The factors in the outcomes compared between the A and B methods were the duration of procedure, volume of bleeding, volume of transfusion, weight of the specimen, incidence of peritoneal injury, rate of conversion to open surgery, and perioperative complications.</p> <p>results</p> <p>The duration of the procedure was 214.4 ± 46.9 minutes in the A method group and 208.1 ± 36.4 minutes in the B method group (p = 0.518). The volume of bleeding and the weight of the specimen were 105.5 ± 283.2 ml and 335.1 ± 137.4 g in the A method group and 44.8 ± 116 ml (p = 0.247) and 309.2 ± 126 g (p = 0.385) in the B method group. There was no significant difference in all factors analyzed.</p> <p>conclusion</p> <p>The A method would be highly possible to produce stable results, even during the introduction period when the staff and the institution are still unfamiliar with the retroperitoneoscopic surgery.</p

TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions (TRIUMPH) compared with usual care: Study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) can relate to urinary storage or voiding. In men, the prevalence and severity of LUTS increases with age, with a significant impact on quality of life. The majority of men presenting with LUTS are managed by their general practitioner (GP) in the first instance, with conservative therapies recommended as the initial treatment. However, the provision of conservative therapies in primary care is variable and can be time and resource limited. GPs require practical resources to enhance patient engagement with such interventions. TRIUMPH aims to determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for LUTS versus usual care.Methods/design: TRIUMPH is a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) being conducted in 30 National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England. The TRIUMPH intervention comprises a standardised LUTS advice booklet developed for the trial with patient and healthcare professional (HCP) consultation. The booklet is delivered to patients by nurses/healthcare assistants following assessment of their urinary symptoms. Patients are directed to relevant sections of the booklet, providing the manualised element of the intervention. To encourage adherence, HCPs provide follow-up contacts over 12 weeks. Practices are randomised 1:1 to either deliver the TRIUMPH intervention or a usual care pathway. The patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months post consent is the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes on LUTS, quality of life, and patient and HCP acceptability and experience of the intervention. Primary analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.Discussion: It is unclear whether conservative therapies for male LUTS are effectively delivered in primary care using current approaches. This can lead to men being inappropriately referred to secondary care or experiencing persistent symptoms. Primary care, therefore, holds the key to effective treatment for these men. The TRIUMPH intervention, through its standardised and manualised approach, has been developed to support GP practices in delivering effective conservative care. This pragmatic, cluster RCT should provide robust evidence in a primary-care setting to inform future guidelines

Bibliometric analysis of academic journal recommendations and requirements for surgical and anesthesiologic adverse events reporting.

BACKGROUND Standards for reporting surgical adverse events vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture adverse events hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative adverse event reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether adverse event reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS Of 1,409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical adverse event reporting. Journals most likely to recommend adverse event reporting were: 1) by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); 2) in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); 3) by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative adverse event reporting. Journal guidelines regarding adverse event reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical adverse event reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality

The maximum standardized uptake value in patients with recurrent or persistent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and PSMA-PET-guided salvage radiotherapy-a multicenter retrospective analysis

Purpose This study aims to evaluate the association of the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in positron-emission tomography targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA-PET) prior to salvage radiotherapy (sRT) on biochemical recurrence free survival (BRFS) in a large multicenter cohort.Methods Patients who underwent (68) Ga-PSMA11-PET prior to sRT were enrolled in four high-volume centers in this retrospective multicenter study. Only patients with PET-positive local recurrence (LR) and/or nodal recurrence (NR) within the pelvis were included. Patients were treated with intensity-modulated-sRT to the prostatic fossa and elective lymphatics in case of nodal disease. Dose escalation was delivered to PET-positive LR and NR. Androgen deprivation therapy was administered at the discretion of the treating physician. LR and NR were manually delineated and SUVmax was extracted for LR and NR. Cox-regression was performed to analyze the impact of clinical parameters and the SUVmax-derived values on BRFS.Results Two hundred thirty-five patients with a median follow-up (FU) of 24 months were included in the final cohort. Two-year and 4-year BRFS for all patients were 68% and 56%. The presence of LR was associated with favorable BRFS (p = 0.016). Presence of NR was associated with unfavorable BRFS (p = 0.007). While there was a trend for SUVmax values &gt;= median (p = 0.071), SUVmax values &gt;= 75% quartile in LR were significantly associated with unfavorable BRFS (p = 0.022, HR: 2.1, 95%CI 1.1-4.6). SUVmax value in NR was not significantly associated with BRFS. SUVmax in LR stayed significant in multivariate analysis (p = 0.030). Sensitivity analysis with patients for who had a FU of &gt; 12 months (n = 197) confirmed these results.Conclusion The non-invasive biomarker SUVmax can prognosticate outcome in patients undergoing sRT and recurrence confined to the prostatic fossa in PSMA-PET. Its addition might contribute to improve risk stratification of patients with recurrent PCa and to guide personalized treatment decisions in terms of treatment intensification or de-intensification. This article is part of the Topical Collection on Oncology-Genitourinary

Caspase-3 dependent nitrergic neuronal apoptosis following cavernous nerve injury is mediated via RhoA and ROCK activation in major pelvic ganglion

Axonal injury due to prostatectomy leads to Wallerian degeneration of the cavernous nerve (CN) and erectile dysfunction (ED). Return of potency is dependent on axonal regeneration and reinnervation of the penis. Following CN injury (CNI), RhoA and Rho-associated protein kinase (ROCK) increase in penile endothelial and smooth muscle cells. Previous studies indicate that nerve regeneration is hampered by activation of RhoA/ROCK pathway. We evaluated the role of RhoA/ROCK pathway in CN regulation following CNI using a validated rat model. CNI upregulated gene and protein expression of RhoA/ROCK and caspase-3 mediated apoptosis in the major pelvic ganglion (MPG). ROCK inhibitor (ROCK-I) prevented upregulation of RhoA/ROCK pathway as well as activation of caspase-3 in the MPG. Following CNI, there was decrease in the dimer to monomer ratio of neuronal nitric oxide synthase (nNOS) protein and lowered NOS activity in the MPG, which were prevented by ROCK-I. CNI lowered intracavernous pressure and impaired non-adrenergic non-cholinergic-mediated relaxation in the penis, consistent with ED. ROCK-I maintained the intracavernous pressure and non-adrenergic non-cholinergic-mediated relaxation in the penis following CNI. These results suggest that activation of RhoA/ROCK pathway mediates caspase-3 dependent apoptosis of nitrergic neurons in the MPG following CNI and that ROCK-I can prevent post-prostatectomy ED

Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301): an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy, a novel tissue-preserving treatment for low-risk prostate cancer, has shown favourable safety and efficacy results in single-arm phase 1 and 2 studies. We compared this treatment with the standard of care, active surveillance, in men with low-risk prostate cancer in a phase 3 trial. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial was done in 47 European university centres and community hospitals. Men with low-risk, localised prostate cancer (Gleason pattern 3) who had received no previous treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (4 mg/kg padeliporfin intravenously over 10 min and optical fibres inserted into the prostate to cover the desired treatment zone and subsequent activation by laser light 753 nm with a fixed power of 150 mW/cm for 22 min 15 s) or active surveillance. Randomisation was done by a web-based allocation system stratified by centre with balanced blocks of two or four patients. Best practice for active surveillance at the time of study design was followed (ie, biopsy at 12-month intervals and prostate-specific antigen measurement and digital rectal examination at 3-month intervals). The co-primary endpoints were treatment failure (histological progression of cancer from low to moderate or high risk or death during 24 months' follow-up) and absence of definite cancer (absence of any histology result definitely positive for cancer at month 24). Analysis was by intention to treat. Treatment was open-label, but investigators assessing primary efficacy outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01310894. FINDINGS: Between March 8, 2011, and April 30, 2013, we randomly assigned 206 patients to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy and 207 patients to active surveillance. Median follow-up was 24 months (IQR 24-25). The proportion of participants who had disease progression at month 24 was 58 (28%) of 206 in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group compared with 120 (58%) of 207 in the active surveillance group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·34, 95% CI 0·24-0·46; p<0·0001). 101 (49%) men in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group had a negative prostate biopsy result at 24 months post treatment compared with 28 (14%) men in the active surveillance group (adjusted risk ratio 3·67, 95% CI 2·53-5·33; p<0·0001). Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy was well tolerated. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were prostatitis (three [2%] in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group vs one [<1%] in the active surveillance group), acute urinary retention (three [2%] vs one [<1%]) and erectile dysfunction (two [1%] vs three [1%]). The most common serious adverse event in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group was retention of urine (15 patients; severe in three); this event resolved within 2 months in all patients. The most common serious adverse event in the active surveillance group was myocardial infarction (three patients). INTERPRETATION: Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy is a safe, effective treatment for low-risk, localised prostate cancer. This treatment might allow more men to consider a tissue-preserving approach and defer or avoid radical therapy. FUNDING: Steba Biotech

Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journal Recommendations and Requirements for Surgical and Anesthesiologic Adverse Events Reporting

BACKGROUND: Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative AE reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether AE reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS: Of 1409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical AE reporting. Journals most likely to recommend AE reporting were: by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality