Background/Aims: Laparoscopy is a widespread surgical approach for many urological conditions. Achieving prof-ciency in laparoscopic surgery requires considerable effort due to the steep learning curve. Several residency programs include standardized laparoscopic training periods in their curricula. Our aim was to systematically analyze the evidence on the current status of training in laparoscopy in different residency programs in urology. Methods: We performed a systematic review of PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane library, in February 2018, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Statement. Identified reports were reviewed according to the previously defined inclusion criteria. Eight publications, comprising a total of 985 urology residents, were selected for inclusion in this analysis. Results: There was a wide variation between training programs in terms of exposure to laparoscopy. Most residents considered that training in lap-aroscopy was inadequate during residency and had a low degree of confidence in independently performing laparo-scopic procedures by the end of the residency. Only North American residents reported high degrees of confidence in the possibility of performing laparoscopic procedures in the uture, whereas the remaining residents, namely from European countries, reported considerably lower degrees of confidence. Conclusion: There were considerable differences between national urology residency programs in terms of exposure to laparoscopy. Most residents would prefer higher exposure to laparoscopy throughout their residencies.

Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) has emerged as a surgical option for patients with prostatic cancer in high-volume centers. The objective is to assess oncological and functional outcomes when implementing RS-RARP in a medium-volume center without previous experience of robotic surgery. This is a prospective observational single-center study. Patients operated between July 2017 and April 2020 were divided into two consecutive groups, A and B, each with 104 patients. The surgeons had prior experience in laparoscopic surgery and underwent robotic training. Positive surgical margin (PSM) status, urinary continence, and erectile function projected by Kaplan–Meier curves, together with patient reported quality of life outcomes at 12 months post-surgery were documented. Median patient age was 63 years (IQR = 59–67), overall PSM rate were 33%, 28% for pT2 disease. Pre-operative values showed no significant difference between both groups. The rate of urinary continence dropped from 81 to 78% (SE = 5.7) (Group A) and from 90 to 72% (SE = 6.3) (Group B) using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form. Baseline sexual function was regained in 41% (Group A) and 47% (Group B) of patients. The median Expanded Prostate Index Composite-26 total score decreased from 86 to 82. These outcomes relate favorably to prior reports. There was a clinically significant decrease in median operative time in the successive groups with post-operative complications occurring in less than 2% of surgical procedures overall. A 12-month follow-up suggests that RS-RARP may be safely introduced in a medium-volume center without previous experience of robotic surgery.

Introduction: To report a series of men with a rectourethral fistula (RUF) resulting from pelvic cancer treatments and explore their therapeutic differences and impact on the functional outcomes and quality of life highlighting the adverse features that should determine permanent urinary or dual diversion. Methods: A retrospective database search was performed in four centers to identify patients with RUF resulting from pelvic cancer treatment. Medical records were analyzed for the demographics, comorbidities, diagnostic evaluation, fistula characteristics, surgical approaches and outcomes. The endpoints analyzed included a successful fistula closure following a repair and the impact of the potential adverse features on outcomes. Results: Twenty-three patients, aged 57–79 years (median 68), underwent an RUF reconstruction. The median follow-up (FU) was 54 months (range 18–115). The patients were divided into two groups according to the etiology: radiation/energy-ablation treatments with or without surgery (G1, n = 10) and surgery only (G2, n = 13). All of the patients underwent a temporary diverting colostomy and suprapubic cystostomy. Overall, a successful RUF closure was achieved in 18 (78%) patients. An interposition flap was used in six (60%) patients and one (7.7%) patient in groups G1 and G2, respectively (p = 0.019). The RUF was managed successfully in all 13 patients in group G2 as opposed to 5/10 (50%) in group G1 (p = 0.008). The patients in the radiation/energy-ablation group were more likely to require permanent dual diversion (50% vs. 0%, p < 0.0075). Conclusion: Radiation/energy-ablation therapies are associated with a more severe RUF and more complex reconstructions. Most of these patients require an abdominoperineal approach and flap interposition. The failure of an RUF repair with the need for permanent dual diversion, eventually combined with extirpative surgery, is higher after previous radiation/energy-ablation treatment. Therefore, permanent dual diversion as the primary treatment should always be included in the decision-making process as reconstruction may be futile in specific settings.

No abstract

No abstract