We concluded no benefit to VR distraction mitigating pain in male patients during cystoscopy.

Purpose Partial prostate gland ablation is a strategy to manage localized prostate cancer. Irreversible electroporation can ablate localized soft tissues. We sought to describe 30- and 90-day complications and intermediate-term functional outcomes in men undergoing prostate gland ablation using irreversible electroporation. Materials and Methods We reviewed the charts of 25 patients with prostate cancer who underwent prostate gland ablation using irreversible electroporation as a primary procedure and who were followed for at least 6 months. Results Median follow-up was 10.9 months. Grade 3 complications occurred in 2 patients including epididymitis (1) and urinary tract infection (1). Fourteen patients experienced grade ≤ 2 complications, mainly transient urinary symptoms, hematuria, and urinary tract infections. Of 25 patients, 4 (16%) had cancer in the zone of ablation on routine follow-up biopsy at 6 months. Of those with normal urinary function at baseline, 88% and 94% reported normal urinary function at 6 and 12 months after prostate gland ablation, respectively. By 12 months, only 1 patient with normal erectile function at baseline reported new difficulty with potency and only 2 patients (8%) required a pad for urinary incontinence. Conclusions Prostate gland ablation with irreversible electroporation is feasible and safe in selected men with localized prostate cancer. Intermediate-term urinary and erectile function outcomes appear reasonable. Irreversible electroporation is effective in ablation of tumor-bearing prostate tissue, as a majority of men had no evidence of residual cancer on biopsy 6 months after prostate gland ablation.

Objectives To present our institutional experience with adult prostate sarcoma over 30 years. Methods We reviewed 38 cases of adult prostate sarcoma diagnosed and treated at our institution between 1982 and 2012. Univariate Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine if there was an association between specific disease characteristics (tumor size, histology, AJCC stage, and metastasis at diagnosis) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Results A total of 38 patients were included, with a median age of 50 (range 17–73). Most men presented with lower urinary tract symptoms (45%), hematuria (24%), or acute urinary retention (21%). Diagnosis was established with prostate needle biopsy (68%) or transurethral resection of the prostate (18%). The predominant histologic subtypes were leiomyosarcoma (13 cases, 34%) and rhabdomyosarcoma (12 cases, 32%). Rhabdomyosarcoma was associated with poorer CSS (hazard ratio = 3.00; 95% CI 1.13, 7.92; p = 0.027) compared to leiomyosarcoma. We did not observe a significant relationship between tumor size and CSS. Overall, median CSS was 2.9 years (95% CI 1.5, 5.4), with 7.7 years for clinically localized disease (95% CI 2.5, not reached) and 1.5 years for metastatic disease (95% CI 1.1, 2.7). Conclusions Adult prostate sarcoma has a poor prognosis, especially in cases of metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. Surgery remains the standard of care, but it provides limited benefit to those with metastatic disease or as a consolidation therapy after partial response to systemic therapy.

Purpose: The AUA (American Urological Association) Position Statement on opioid use recommends using opioids only when necessary. We sought to determine if routine prescribing of opioids is necessary for pain control after vasectomy, and if an association exists with persistent use. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients who underwent vasectomy in clinic between April 2017 and March 2018. Patients were stratified into 2 groups, including those initially prescribed opioids and those not receiving opioid prescriptions at the time of vasectomy. The initial pain medication regimen depended on the standard prescription practice of each provider. Encounters with a medical provider for scrotal pain within 30 days, subsequent opioid prescriptions and new persistent opioid prescriptions between 90 and 180 days were compared between the 2 groups using the Fisher exact test. Results: Between April 2017 and March 2018 a total of 228 patients underwent clinic vasectomy as performed by 8 urologists. At the time of vasectomy 102 patients received opioid prescriptions and 126 received no opioid prescriptions. There was no statistically significant difference between the opioid and nonopioid groups in encounters for scrotal pain (12.7% vs 18.4%, p [ 0.279). The incidence of new persistent opioid use was 7.8% in the opioid cohort compared to 1.5% in the nonopioid cohort (p [ 0.046). Conclusions: Opioids, which do not appear to be necessary in men who undergo vasectomy, were associated with persistent use in 7.8% of patients at 3 to 6 months. In the face of an opioid epidemic urologists should take action to limit over prescription of opioids after vasectomy.

Approximately 20% of patients with pure EC had teratoma at PC-RPLND. We have shown that those with a maximum node size of <1 cm should not be precluded from RPLND.