Background:Patients undergoing open abdominopelvic procedures for malignancy are at high risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). This risk can be mitigated with prophylaxis; however, optimum duration in this population remains unknown. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of contemporary literature on the use of heparin thromboprophylaxis following major open pelvic surgery for malignancy, comparing the efficacy and safety of extended duration to inpatient treatment. Methods: A study protocol describing search strategy and inclusion and exclusion criteria was developed and registered with PROSPERO. A literature review was conducted in accordance with the protocol. Results: Literature review identified only 4 studies directly comparing extended and inpatient duration prophylaxis, with a combined population of 3198 and 3135 patients for VTE rate and bleeding events, respectively. Despite many studies reporting lower VTE rates in patients receiving extended prophylaxis, no statistically significant difference in rates of postoperative VTE (p = 0.18) or bleeding complications (p = 0.43) was identified between patients receiving extended duration prophylaxis and those receiving inpatient only prophylaxis. Conclusion: On the review of contemporary literature, no significant difference was found in rates of postoperative VTE or bleeding complications between patients receiving extended duration heparin VTE prophylaxis and those receiving inpatient prophylaxis after open abdominopelvic surgery for malignancy. This raises the question of how extended duration prophylaxis has become common practice in this population, and whether this needs to be re-evaluated.

While a prolonged admission and multiple operations are expected, early diagnosis and aggressive multimodal treatment may result in a significantly better survival outcome than those quoted in previous literature.

Objective To review the published literature evaluating the efficacy and safety of buccal mucosa ureteroplasty. Methods A systematic literature review was carried out using a protocol devised a priori. The review was registered with the Joanna Briggs Institute. Results were scrutinized and full text of all relevant articles was obtained for review. Results A systematic search resulted in 1092 articles, with scrutiny resulting in 1079 exclusions. Two additional articles were identified from references, resulting in a total of 15 included studies containing a total of 72 buccal mucosal ureteroplasty procedures. A total of 34 cases were carried out using the open approach, and 38 were carried out using the robot assisted approach. The overall reported success rate was reported to be 66 out of 72 (91.6%), being 32 out of 34 (94.1%) and 34 out of 38 (89.5%) open and robotic cases, respectively. The complication rate was reported in 60 cases, being 15 out of 60 (25%) for all complications, with a 5% (3/60) rate for complications graded as Clavien–Dindo score ≥3. Conclusions Buccal mucosa ureteroplasty appears to have high success rates and low rates of serious complications in both open and robot assisted approaches. However, the current available literature is limited to 72 cases, and further studies with larger patient populations and ongoing longitudinal review are warranted.

BackgroundTo examine the effect of intra-operative cell salvage (ICS) in open radical prostatectomy.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, all patients undergoing open radical prostatectomy for malignancy at our institution between 10/04/2013 and 10/04/2017 were enrolled. Patients were grouped and compared based on whether they received ICS. Primary outcomes were allogeneic transfusion rates, and disease recurrence. Secondary outcomes were complications and transfusion-related cost.ResultsFifty-nine men were enrolled; 30 used no blood conservation technique, while 29 employed ICS. There were no significant differences between groups in age, pre- or post-operative haemoglobin, Charlson comorbidity index, operation duration or length of stay. Tumour characteristics were also similar between groups, including pre-operative prostate specific antigen, post-operative Gleason score, T-stage, nodal status and rates of margin positivity. Compared with controls, the ICS group had longer follow up (945 vs. 989 days; P=0.0016). The control and ICS groups were not significantly different in rates of tumour recurrence (6 vs. 3 patients; P=0.30) or complications (10 vs. 5 patients; P=0.16). While the proportion of patients receiving allogenic transfusion was similar (9 vs. 6 patients; P=0.41), fewer red blood products transfused (40 vs. 12 units) meant transfusion related costs were lower in ICS patients (AUD $47,666 vs. $37,429).ConclusionsICS reduced transfusion related costs, without affecting allogeneic transfusion rates, tumour recurrence or complication rates. These findings extend the literature supporting ICS in oncological surgery. Prospective randomised studies are needed to confirm the existing level III evidence.

ObjectiveTo assess the impact of intra-operative cell salvage on outcomes in open nephrectomy.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed of all patients undergoing open nephrectomy for suspected malignancy from 1 October 2013 to 1 October 2017. Patients were grouped and compared based on whether they received intra-operative cell salvage (ICS). Primary outcomes were allogeneic transfusion rates (ATRs), and if histology confirmed cancer, disease recurrence. Secondary outcomes were complications and transfusion-related cost.ResultsForty patients underwent open nephrectomy for suspected malignancy during the enrolment period. Sixteen patients received ICS while 24 did not (standard group). Compared with the standard group, ICS patients had similar median age (63.5 vs. 61.0 years; p = 0.83) but fewer females (19% vs. 58%; p = 0.013). The groups were similar in pre-operative and discharge haemoglobin, Charlson Comorbidity Index, length of hospital stay and proportion with thoracoabdominal surgical approach. The ICS group had a smaller proportion undergoing partial nephrectomy (19% vs. 54%; p = 0.025) and shorter median follow-up (278 vs. 827 days; p = 0.0005). Histology was malignant for 14 ICS and 15 standard patients. The ICS group had more frequent ≥T2 disease (79% vs. 27%; p = 0.005). There were no positive margins. Both groups had similar ATRs (6% vs. 4%; p = 0.96), complication rates (19% vs. 29%; p = 0.46) and recurrence rates (18% vs. 7%; p = 0.40). Transfusion costs were higher amongst ICS patients (AUD $878.18 vs. $49.65 per patient).ConclusionICS appears safe, with low rates of recurrence and complication. Both groups had low ATRs, and therefore cost benefit for ICS was not seen.

Purpose To review the existing available information regarding urolithiasis management and the impact of COVID-19 on this, and propose recommendations for management of emergency urolithiasis presentations in the COVID-19 era. Methods Review of published guidelines produced by Urological Governing Bodies, followed by the literature review regarding urolithiasis management during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results Consistent recommendations across guidelines and literature were that urolithiasis with concurrent sepsis or renal failure remains a urological emergency warranting urgent intervention within the pandemic environment. Ureteric stenting and percutaneous nephrostomy are considered equivalent for decompression in this setting, with both ideally to be performed under local anaesthesia where possible to spare ventilators and reduce aerosol-generating procedures. Greater utilization of medical expulsive therapy and dissolution chemolysis may occur during the pandemic, and longer indwelling stent times may be accepted while definite stone clearance is deferred. Conclusions Urolithiasis will continue to be a source of emergency presentations requiring urgent intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is possible to limit these interventions to decompression of the collecting system in the setting of concurrent obstruction or infection, performed under local anaesthesia to limit use of resources and minimise aerosol-generating procedures, with deferral of definitive management.

BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common postoperative complication associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The use of prophylactic heparin postoperatively reduces this risk, and the use of extended duration prophylaxis is becoming increasingly common. Malignancy and pelvic surgery both independently further increase the risk of postoperative VTE and patients undergoing major pelvic surgery for malignancy are at particularly high risk of VTE. However, the optimum duration of prophylaxis specifically in this population currently remains unclear.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of literature in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0.,2011) to evaluate current evidence of the effectiveness and safety of inpatient versus extended VTE prophylaxis with heparin (all forms) following major pelvic surgery for malignancy. We will search PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Regarding safety, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) websites will be searched, including all levels of evidence. Results will be the postoperative timeframe in which a VTE event can be considered to have been provoked by the surgery, and the number of patients needed to treat with both inpatient and extended prophylaxis to prevent a VTE event in this timeframe, comparing these to determine if there is a significant benefit from extended prophylaxis.DiscussionThis systematic review will aim to identify the postoperative period in which patients undergoing major pelvic surgery for malignancy are at further increased risk of VTE as a result of their surgery and the optimum duration of heparin VTE prophylaxis with heparin to reduce this risk. Determining this will allow evidence-based recommendations to be made for the optimum duration of heparin VTE prophylaxis post major pelvic surgery for malignancy, leading to improved standards of care that are consistent between different providers and institutions.Systematic review registrationIn accordance with guidelines, our systematic review was submitted to PROSPERO for consideration of registration on 16/12/17 and was registered on 12/1/18 with the registration number CRD42018068961, and it was last updated on December 1, 2018.

No abstract