No abstract

Purpose: To report the prevalence of the defi nitions used to identify post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and to compare the rates of PPI over time under different criteria. Materials and Methods: In the period from January 1, 2000, until December 31, 2017, we used a recently described methodology to perform evidence acquisition called reverse systematic review (RSR). The continence defi nition and rates were evaluated and compared at 1, 3, 6, 12, and >18 months post-operative. Moreover, the RSR showed the "natural history" of PPI after LRP. Results: We identifi ed 353 review articles in the systematized search, 137 studies about PPI were selected for data collection, and fi nally were included 203 reports (nr) with 51.436 patients. The most used criterion of continence was No pad (nr=121; 59.6%), the second one was Safety pad (nr=57; 28.1%). A statistically signifi cant difference between continence criteria was identifi ed only at >18 months (p=0.044). From 2013 until the end of our analysis, the Safety pad and Others became the most reported. Conclusion: RSR revealed the "natural history" of PPI after the LRP technique, and showed that through time the Safety pad concept was mainly used. However, paradoxically, we demonstrated that the two most utilized criteria, Safety pad and No pad, had similar PPI outcomes. Further effort should be made to standardize the PPI denomination to evaluate, compare and discuss the urinary post-operatory function.

No abstract

No abstract

There has been discussion over where to draw the line between partial and radical nephrectomy ever since performing the surgery was deemed possible. In 1869 Gustav Simon made history by performing the first ever planned nephrectomy to cure a urinary fistula and later in 1870, the first partial nephrectomy to treat hydronephrosis (1). That stated two important facts that are pertinent to our discussion. The first statement was that removing a kidney or part of one was possible. The second statement affirmed that it was possible to live with only one functioning organ. With that in mind, we persist year after year, trying to figure out where to put a line.Beyond oncological control, the risk of chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular events, hospitalization and death are problems that we as urologists must keep in mind when discussing long term repercussions of kidney cancer treatment, to find a way to push it as far as possible from our patients waiting for a partial or radical nephrectomy (2).Many studies have shown (3-6) that locally invasive tumors such as T3a can be resected in a nephron sparing surgery (NSS) with oncological safety in long enough follow-up. Although positive surgical margins do increase with NSS of more complex and advanced tumors, their consequences are still negligible and a two year follow up, although reduced, is probably enough time to evaluate properly a recurrence rate based on previous studies (7).Still, the literature is teeming with retrospective, non-randomized, biased filled works that try to give us some direction but are yet to give us any definitive answer. With that in mind, one other aspect to discuss would be the benefit of NSS and renal function preservation in this scenario. The follow up becomes central when dealing with this subject, once it has been reported that average time to recover original kidney function rate could take up to 25 months for 49% of patients to regain their previous eGFR (8,9).Tumor size is also significantly different between most partial and radical nephrectomy studied groups, and that may also impact in the final renal function recovery (10). Many studies have shown even in the same T stage, that size may interfere in terms of benefit when performing NSS. According to de Andrade et al. (11) who analyzed patients submitted to radical nephrectomy, it was found that patients with kidneys with larger tumors suffered lower eGFR decreases when compared to kidneys with smaller ones and even lower than kidney donor patients, once the amount of lost functioning nephrons at surgery increases respectively. So eGFR changes after radical and partial nephrectomy depends on the quality and extension of the remaining normal tissue, mainly in the affected kidney, and the biggest EDITORIAL COMMENT