Background To compare 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA)-mediated photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) with narrow-band imaging (NBI) for cancer detection during transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). Methods Between June 2018 and October 2020, 114 patients and 282 lesions were included in the analysis. Patients were orally administered 5-ALA (20 mg/kg) 2 h before TURBT. The bladder was inspected with white light (WL), PDD, and NBI for each patient, and all areas positive by at least one method were resected or biopsied. The imaging data were then compared to the pathology results. Results The sensitivities of WL, PDD, and NBI for detecting urothelial carcinoma were 88.1%, 89.6%, and 76.2%, respectively. The specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for detecting urothelial carcinoma were 47.5%, 80.9%, and 61.3%, respectively, for WL; 22.5%, 74.5%, and 46.2%, respectively, for PDD; and 46.3%, 78.2%, and 43.5%, respectively, for NBI. PDD was significantly more sensitive than NBI for all lesions (p < 0.001) and carcinoma in situ (CIS) lesions (94.6% vs. 54.1%, p < 0.001). Conclusions PDD can increase the detection rate of bladder cancer, compared to NBI, by greater than 10%. Therefore, 100% of CIS lesions can be detected by adding PDD to WL.

Objectives To assess the necessity of prophylactic drain placement in retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephroureterectomy with open distal ureterectomy for upper tract urothelial cancer. Methods Between July 2011 and March 2021, 200 patients with localized clinical Tis‐T3 upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma underwent laparoscopic nephroureterectomy with open distal ureterectomy. After removing the specimen, drainage tubes were placed on the renal beds and/or in the retrovesical spaces. Drain tubes were omitted for most patients after 2017. We compared the postoperative outcomes between the patients with drain placement (D+ group) and without drain placement (D− group) using propensity score matching. Results A total of 164 patients (90 in the D+ group and 74 in the D− group) were enrolled, and matched pairs of 108 patients were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications according to Clavien–Dindo grade in the two groups after the propensity score matching. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative lymphocele (n = 5 vs. 9, p = 0.395) and symptomatic lymphocele (n = 1 vs. 1, p = 1) between the two groups. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the D− group (11 vs. 8 days, p < 0.0001). Conclusions We found that omitting the drainage tube after laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy did not increase postoperative complications or lymphocele and shortened the post‐hospital stay.

A retrocaval ureter (RCU) is a rare cause of congenital ureteral obstruction that often requires surgical repair. We report two cases of RCU in adults treated with robot‐assisted laparoscopic surgery. In both cases, we performed robotic ureteroureterostomy with dissection of the entire length of the retrocaval portion of the right ureter without complications. In the second case, renal stone removal was simultaneously performed. The robot‐assisted procedure we performed could be considered safe and feasible for the surgical repair of an RCU.

To evaluate the surgical and functional outcomes between robot-assisted (CRO-RAPN) vs. laparoscopic (CRO-LPN) methods of cortical-renorrhaphy-omitting partial nephrectomy. Between July 2012 and June 2020, patients with localized clinical T1-2 renal masses who underwent CRO-RAPN or CRO-LPN were reviewed. The outcomes of the two groups were compared using propensity-score matching. Trifecta was defined as negative surgical margin, warm ischemic time < 25 min, and absence of complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III or more until three months postoperatively. The preservation rate of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was evaluated at six months postoperatively. Among 291 patients (CRO-RAPN, n = 210; CRO-LPN, n = 81) included in the study, 150 matched pairs of patients were analyzed. Compared to the CRO-LPN group, the CRO-RAPN group was associated with shorter warm ischemic time (13 min vs. 20 min, P < 0.001), shorter total operation time (162 min vs. 212 min, P < 0.001), less estimated blood loss (40 mL vs. 119 mL, P = 0.002), lower incidence of overall complications (3% vs. 16%, P = 0.001), higher preservation rate of eGFR at six months postoperatively (93% vs. 89%, P = 0.003), and higher trifecta achievement rate (84% vs. 64%, P = 0.004). CRO-RAPN contributed to shorter warm ischemic time, less blood loss, fewer complications, and higher preservation of renal function, all of which allowed this technique to achieve a higher rate of trifecta compared to CRO-LPN.