Koyama, Tatsuki

Objective To assess the effect of Moses™ 2.0 (Lumenis Be Ltd., Yokneam Illit, Israel; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) for lithotripsy of renal stones of 8–20 mm in diameter on operative time, surgeon workload, and retropulsion. Subjects/Patients and Methods In our multicentre, randomised, double‐blind clinical trial, patients were randomised 1:1 to standard or Moses 2.0 laser lithotripsy and stratified by stone size. Patients and surgeons were blinded to laser modality. Primary outcomes were total operative time as well as surgeon workload assessed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration‐Task Load Index (NASA‐TLX). Secondary outcomes were stone retropulsion evaluated by blinded video review and postoperative clinical outcomes. Linear regression modelling was used for analysis. Results A total of 153 patients (79 Standard, 74 Moses 2.0) with similar clinical, stone, and operative characteristics were evaluated. There was no significant difference in operative times between the Standard and Moses 2.0 groups ( P = 0.73). Moses 2.0 was associated with lower effort, frustration, mental, physical, and temporal workload, as well as higher rated overall performance compared to the standard laser. Video review demonstrated no difference in rates of retropulsion ( P = 0.13). Complication rates (Standard: 13%; Moses 2.0: 10%) and stone‐free rates (Standard: 51%; Moses: 2.0 55%) were comparable. Conclusion Our study evaluated the impact of Moses 2.0 technology on high‐powered renal stone dusting, constituting the largest double‐blind trial of its kind to date. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any difference in operative times or clinical outcomes when using Moses 2.0 compared to standard laser lithotripsy. Moses 2.0 was associated with reduced surgeon workload, which has implicit impact on surgeon wellness.

Background: The assessment of surgical competency is essential for clinical training and safety. No objective, real-time tools exist to evaluate competency during endoscopic stone operation. We sought to apply endoscopic computer vision models to define automated performance metrics (APMs) from videos of flexible ureteroscopy. Materials and Methods: We assessed three APMs for endoscopic treatment of kidney stones, including percentage of frames without stone visibility, screen occupancy by stone, and frame-to-frame change in stone occupancy. Surgical videos of a surgeon performing either stone localization or stone ablation were recorded. Using our previously validated computer vision model for endoscopic stone segmentation, APMs were compared between experts (fellowship-trained endourologists) and trainees. Results: Forty-six videos, including 28 of stone localization and 18 of stone laser ablation, were analyzed from nine surgeons (three experts and six trainees). During stone localization, trainee videos had a higher percentage of frames without visible stone (4% vs 27%, p < 0.01) and lower screen occupancy by stone (5% vs 14%, p = 0.03) compared with expert videos. During laser ablation, trainee videos had a higher frame-to-frame change in stone occupancy (3% vs 2%, p < 0.01) compared with expert videos. Conclusions: APMs from computer vision methods differ between expert and trainee surgical videos of endoscopic kidney stone treatment. These metrics could be used to objectively assess skill evaluation and acquisition.

Abstract Background Financial toxicity is emerging as an important patient-centered outcome and is understudied in prostate cancer patients. We sought to understand the association between financial burden and treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer to better evaluate the role of financial discussions in patient counseling. Methods Utilizing the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation dataset, we identified all men accrued between 2011 and 2012 who underwent surgery, radiation, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Financial burden and treatment regret were assessed at 3- and 5-year follow-up. The association between financial burden and regret was assessed using multivariable longitudinal logistic regression controlling for demographic and disease characteristics, treatment, functional outcomes, and patient expectations. Results Of the 2924 eligible patients, regret and financial burden assessments for 3- and/or 5-year follow-up were available for 81% (n = 2359). After adjustment for relevant covariates, financial burden from “finances in general” was associated with treatment regret at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 4.57; P = .004); however, this association was no longer statistically significant at 5-year follow-up (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.56 to 2.54; P = .7). Conclusions In this population-based sample of men with localized prostate cancer, we observed associations between financial burden and treatment regret. Our findings suggest indirect treatment costs, especially during the first 3 years after diagnosis, may impact patients more profoundly than direct costs and are important for inclusion in shared decision making.