Introduction:We assessed outcomes and costs of open prostatectomy (OP) versus robotic-assisted prostatectomy (RAP) at a single tertiary care university hospital. Results:The 2 groups had similar demographics, including mean age (64.7 vs. 64.2) and mean body mass index (27.2 vs. 27.2). The OP group had a higher proportion of higher risk cancers compared to the RAP group (32.5% vs. 8.5%). Mean skin-to-skin operative room time was less for the OP (114.2 vs. 234.1 minutes). Transfusion rates were similar at 1.5% with OP compared to 3.5% with RAP. The mean length of stay was 1.78 days for OP compared to 1.76 days for RAP, for the last 100 patients in each group. The OP group had more high-grade disease in the prostatectomy specimen, with Gleason ≥8 in 23.5% compared to 3.5% in the RAP group. Positive surgical margin rates were comparable at 31% for OP and 24.6% for RAP, and remained similar after stratification for pT2 and pT3 disease. The grade I and II perioperative complication rate (ClavienDindo classification) was lower in the OP group (8.5% vs. 20%). Postoperative stress urinary incontinence rates (4.8% for OP and 4.6% for RAP) and biochemical-free status (91.8% for OP and 96% for RAP) did not differ at 12 months post-surgery. The additional cost of RAP was calculated as $5629 per case. The main limitations of this study are its retrospective nature and lack of validated questionnaires for evaluation of postoperative functional outcomes. Conclusion: While hospital length of stay, transfusion rates, positive surgical margin rates and postoperative urinary incontinence were similar, OP had a shorter operative time and a lower cost compared to the very early experience of RAP. Future parallel prospective analysis will address the impact of the learning curve on these outcomes.

No abstract

Introduction: For different reasons, urology appears to be one of the least known specialties in medicine. In this study, the main objective was to measure the knowledge about urology in the general population. Methods:A questionnaire was completed by 150 respondents.Seventy-five respondents were from Sherbrooke, QC (a Frenchspeaking city) and 75 were from Burlington, VT (an Englishspeaking city). Results:Of the 150 respondents, 75% (113) said they knew little or nothing about urology and 63% (95) did not know that urology involves surgery. Also, when asked to name 3 diseases within the field of urology, 59% (89) of the respondents were unable to name at least 1 disease. Conclusion:This study demonstrates the lack of knowledge about urology in the general population. As urologists, we have to consider the need to conduct an informational campaign to increase the awareness of urology and the services urologists provide. Résultats : Sur les 150 répondants, 75 % (113) avouaient avoir des connaissances faibles ou nulles dans le domaine de l'urologie et 63 % (95) ignoraient que la chirurgie peut parfois être utilisée comme traitement urologique. En outre, lorsqu'on a demandé aux répondants de nommer 3 maladies traitées par un urologue, 59 % (89) des répondants étaient incapables de nommer seulement une maladie. Can UrolConclusion : L'étude illustre le manque de connaissances de la population générale dans le domaine de l'urologie. En tant qu'urologues, nous devons reconnaître la nécessité de mener une campagne d'information afin de sensibiliser la population au sujet de l'urologie et des services que nous offrons.