Faraj, Kassem S

ObjectivesTo compare ureteroenteric stricture rates after radical cystectomy in patients who undergo an intracorporeal urinary diversion versus other surgical approaches.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed health records of all patients who underwent cystectomy with urinary diversion at Mayo Clinic Hospital (Phoenix, AZ, USA) from 1 January 2007 through 1 January 2018. Ureteroenteric stricture was identified by surveillance imaging. Patients were stratified by surgical approach: open radical cystectomy, robot‐assisted radical cystectomy with extracorporeal urinary diversion and robot‐assisted radical cystectomy‐intracorporeal urinary diversion. A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted that included independent predictors of stricture development.ResultsOf the 573 cystectomies assessed, 236 (41.2%) were carried out robotically. In the robot‐assisted radical cystectomy cohort, 39 patients (16.5%) underwent intracorporeal urinary diversion. The median follow‐up period was 55, 70 and 71 months for the open radical cystectomy, robot‐assisted radical cystectomy‐extracorporeal urinary diversion and robot‐assisted radical cystectomy‐intracorporeal urinary diversion groups, respectively. Subgroup stricture rates were as follows: open radical cystectomy, 8.0%; robot‐assisted radical cystectomy‐extracorporeal urinary diversion, 9.6%; and robot‐assisted radical cystectomy‐intracorporeal urinary diversion, 2.6% (P = 0.33). The median time to stricture was 5 months (interquartile range 3.3–11.5 months). In the bivariable analysis, factors that were associated with the development of ureteroenteric stricture were postoperative urinary leak (hazard ratio 3.177, 95% confidence interval 1.129–8.935; P = 0.03) and body mass index (hazard ratio 1.078, 95% confidence interval 1.027–1.132; P = 0.002). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, intracorporeal urinary diversion approach was not associated with the development of ureteroenteric stricture (hazard ratio 0.272, 95% confidence interval 0.036–2.066; P = 0.21).ConclusionsUreteroenteric stricture is a complication that typically occurs within the first postoperative year. Although our results did not support major differences in outcomes between intracorporeal urinary diversion and extracorporeal urinary diversion, the small sample size did not exclude the possibility of a type 2 statistical error.

Objectives To compare the enucleation efficiency of Moses 2.0 with non‐Moses technology in patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). Patients and Methods A double‐blinded, randomised study of patients undergoing HoLEP at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, using the Lumenis Pulse™ 120H laser system. Patients were randomised to either right lobe enucleation using Moses 2.0 and left lobe enucleation using non‐Moses, or the opposite. The primary outcome was individual lobe enucleation efficiency. Secondary outcomes included individual lobe laser time, laser energy, individual enucleation and haemostasis laser energies, and fibre burn back. Two independent reviewers watched videos of the procedures and provided a subjective evaluation of the technologies. Results A total of 27 patients were included in the study. For the entire cohort, Moses 2.0 had less fibre degradation (3.5 vs 16.8 mm, P < 0.01) compared to non‐Moses. When HoLEP procedures were performed by an expert, Moses 2.0 resulted in shorter enucleation time (21 vs 36.7 min, P = 0.016) and higher enucleation efficiency (1.75 vs 1.05 g/min, P = 0.05) compared to non‐Moses. When HoLEP was performed by trainees, the Moses 2.0 cohort had a shorter haemostasis laser time (4.1 vs 9 min, P = 0.035) compared to the non‐Moses. Fibre degradation was lower with Moses 2.0 compared to non‐Moses for both experts and trainees. Moses 2.0 received a higher score than the standard technology for the incision sharpness, fibre control, tissue separation, tissue damage, haemostasis, visibility, and charring. The overall inter‐observer correlation coefficient was 0.63. Conclusion Moses 2.0 has higher enucleation efficiency compared to non‐Moses when used by experts. The subjective evaluation favoured Moses 2.0.

Abstract Objectives To test the hypothesis that lymph node yield will vary by pathology assistant (PA) in patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). Methods This is a single-institution retrospective review that included patients who underwent an RC with PLND for bladder cancer from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2018. Predicted mean lymph node counts were generated using multivariable regression analysis. Results In a total of 430 patients who underwent RC with PLND, the median lymph node count (interquartile range) was 15.0 (11.0-21.0). The frequency of the limits of lymphadenectomy was as follows: external iliac, internal iliac, and obturator (true pelvis) (33.3%); true pelvis plus common iliac to the level of the aortic bifurcation (47.9%); and inferior mesenteric artery (18.8%). On descriptive analysis, there were differences in lymph node yield when evaluating the following variables: level of dissection, clinical stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgical approach, surgeon, pathologist, and PA (P &lt; .05). On multivariable analysis, adjusted lymph node counts varied between surgeons, pathologists, clinical stage, and level of dissection but not by PA (P = .18). Conclusions Lymph node yield after RC varies on several known levels, including surgeon, extent of lymphadenectomy, clinical stage, and pathologist. This study found no significant variation in lymph node yield according to PA.