Journal of endourology
-
Journal of endourology · Oct 2019
Randomized Controlled TrialComparison of Diode Laser (980 nm) Enucleation vs Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial with 12-Month Follow-Up.
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety between diode laser (980 nm) enucleation of the prostate (DiLEP) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Patients and Methods: One hundred twenty-six BPH patients in our hospital from December 2016 to December 2017 were enrolled in this study. They were randomized to the DiLEP group or HoLEP group, which were administrated with DiLEP and HoLEP treatment, respectively. The patient's characteristics, such as age, body mass index, comorbidities, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen, were recorded before surgery. ⋯ The Qmax, PVR, IPSS, and QoL for both groups of patients were dramatically improved after surgery. By comparing the Qmax, PVR, IPSS, and QoL between the two groups, no significant differences were detected in the 3-, 6-, or 12-month follow-up. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that both DiLEP and HoLEP are efficient and safe treatments for BPH patients. DiLEP showed less blood loss and decrease in hemoglobin than HoLEP, which indicated that the diode laser (980 nm) generates a better hemostasis effect.
-
Introduction and Objective: Eighty percent of patients with distal ureteral stones <10 mm will ultimately pass the stone under conservative care. Nonetheless, some may experience related morbidity before surgical intervention is performed. Our study aims to find predictive variables for surgical intervention. ⋯ Multivariate analysis showed stone diameter, stone-to-UVJ distance, and pain duration at presentation to be independently predictive for intervention. Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis identified stone size >4 mm, stone-to-UVJ distance >4 mm, and pain duration >4 days to be the most significant cutoff points for patient risk stratification-"Rule of 4's." Further analysis showed that the prevalence of intervention among patients with 0, 1, 2, and 3 risk factors was 4.3%, 22.1%, 45%, and 66.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Stone size, stone distance from the UVJ, and pain duration play a significant role in predicting surgical intervention. "Rule of 4's" may aid in early recognition of patients who will ultimately undergo intervention and omit the burden of nonfavorable expectant management.
-
Journal of endourology · Jul 2019
CommentLetter to the Editor RE: Meller, Editorial Comment on: Risk Factors for Postoperative Fever and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome After Ureteroscopy for Stone Disease by Southern et al. (From: Meller A. J Endourol 2019;33:523-524; DOI: 10.1089/end.2019.0206).
-
Journal of endourology · May 2019
Accuracy of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Universal Surgical Risk Calculator in Predicting Complications Following Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy at a National Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Introduction: There is paucity of literature about the validation of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP®) surgical risk calculator for prediction of outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). We sought to evaluate the accuracy of the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator in the patients who underwent RARC at our institute. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively maintained database for patients who underwent RARC between 2005 and 2017. Accuracy of the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator was assessed, by comparing the rate of actual complication events after surgery with the receiver operating characteristics curve analysis by calculating the fractional area under the curve (AUC) and the Brier score (BS). ⋯ The actual mean length of hospital stay (10.6 ± 7.8 days) was longer compared with the predicted length (8.5 ± 1.6 days). AUC values were low and the BSs were high for any complication (AUC: 0.50 and BS: 0.29), serious complication (AUC: 0.53 and BS: 0.12), urinary tract infection (AUC: 0.61 and BS: 0.14), renal insufficiency (AUC: 0.64 and BS: 0.08), return to operation room (AUC: 0.58 and BS: 0.07), and early readmission (AUC: 0.55 and BS: 0.11, respectively). Conclusions: The ACS NSQIP calculator demonstrated low accuracy in predicting postoperative outcomes after RARC. These findings highlight the need for development of procedure- and technique-specific RARC calculators.