Purpose:Recently there has been increasing enthusiasm for performing simple abdominal procedures by transgastric surgery. We previously reported the usefulness of a combined transgastric and transvesical approach to cholecystectomy. In this study we assessed the feasibility of combined transgastric and transvesical approach for performing a more complex surgical procedure, such as nephrectomy, in a porcine model. Materials and Methods: In a nonsurvival study combined transgastric and transvesical approaches were established in 6 female pigs. Under ureteroscope guidance we installed a transvesical 5 mm over tube into the peritoneal cavity and a flexible gastroscope was passed orally into the peritoneal cavity by a gastrotomy. We performed right or left nephrectomy with instruments introduced by the 2 devices that worked in the renal hilum, alternating device intervention for dissection and retraction procedures. Results: Four right and 2 left nephrectomies were performed. There were no complications during the creation of transvesical and transgastric access. In all animals we visualized the 2 kidneys. The renal vessels and ureter were reasonably individualized and ligated separately with ultrasonic scissors, which were introduced through the transvesical port. In 2 early cases mild hemorrhage occurred after ultrasonic ligation. To overcome this complication we applied clips successfully before ultrasonic ligation in the remaining animals. Thus, complete renal release and mobilization to the stomach were achieved in all animals. Conclusions: Nephrectomy by natural orifices using the combined transgastric and transvesical approach is technically feasible, although to our knowledge there is no reliable method for removing the specimen with current instruments.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe use of prostate cancer screening tools that take into account relevant prebiopsy information (ie, risk calculators) is recommended as a way of determining the risk of cancer and the subsequent need for a prostate biopsy. This has the potential to limit prostate cancer overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment. mHealth apps are gaining traction in urological practice and are used by both practitioners and patients for a variety of purposes.ObjectiveThe impetus of the study was to design, develop, and assess a smartphone app for prostate cancer screening, based on the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC).MethodsThe results of the Rotterdam arm of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) study were used to elaborate several algorithms that allowed the risk of prostate cancer to be estimated. A step-by-step workflow was established to ensure that depending on the available clinical information the most complete risk model of the RPCRC was used. The user interface was designed and then the app was developed as a native app for iOS. The usability of the app was assessed using the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) developed by IBM, in a group of 92 participants comprising urologists, general practitioners, and medical students.ResultsA total of 11 questions were built into the app, and, depending on the answers, one of the different algorithms of the RPCRC could be used to predict the risk of prostate cancer and of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥7 and clinical stage >T2b). The system usefulness, information quality, and interface quality scores were high—92% (27.7/30), 87% (26.2/30), and 89% (13.4/15), respectively. No usability problems were identified.ConclusionsThe RPCRC app is helpful in predicting the risk of prostate cancer and, even more importantly, clinically significant prostate cancer. Its algorithms have been externally validated before and the usability score shows the app’s interface is well designed. Further usability testing is required in different populations to verify these results and ensure that it is easy to use, to warrant a broad appeal, and to provide better patient care.

BackgroundUrological mobile medical (mHealth) apps are gaining popularity with both clinicians and patients. mHealth is a rapidly evolving and heterogeneous field, with some urology apps being downloaded over 10,000 times and others not at all. The factors that contribute to medical app downloads have yet to be identified, including the hypothetical influence of expert involvement in app development.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to identify predictors of the number of urology app downloads.MethodsWe reviewed urology apps available in the Google Play Store and collected publicly available data. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression evaluated the effect of publicly available app variables on the number of apps being downloaded.ResultsOf 129 urology apps eligible for study, only 2 (1.6%) had >10,000 downloads, with half having ≤100 downloads and 4 (3.1%) having none at all. Apps developed with expert urologist involvement (P=.003), optional in-app purchases (P=.01), higher user rating (P<.001), and more user reviews (P<.001) were more likely to be installed. App cost was inversely related to the number of downloads (P<.001). Only data from the Google Play Store and the developers’ websites, but not other platforms, were publicly available for analysis, and the level and nature of expert involvement was not documented.ConclusionsThe explicit participation of urologists in app development is likely to enhance its chances to have a higher number of downloads. This finding should help in the design of better apps and further promote urologist involvement in mHealth. Official certification processes are required to ensure app quality and user safety.

Only one fifth of the abstracts presented at the WCE are ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals. Attendees should be aware of this limitation, and scientific committees should be encouraged to be more selective. Although presentation at major urological congresses constitutes an invaluable method for rapid scientific dissemination, abstracts contain data that usually are difficult to access and of questionable validity. In this respect, investigators are encouraged to publish their data.

PurposeTo reach standardized terminology in focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa).MethodsA four-stage modified Delphi consensus project was undertaken among a panel of international experts in the field of FT for PCa. Data on terminology in FT was collected from the panel by three rounds of online questionnaires. During a face-to-face meeting on June 21, 2015, attended by 38 experts, all data from the online rounds were reviewed and recommendations for definitions were formulated.ResultsConsensus was attained on 23 of 27 topics; TargetedFT was defined as a lesion-based treatment strategy, treating all identified significant cancer foci; FT was generically defined as an anatomy-based (zonal) treatment strategy. Treatment failure due to the ablative energy inadequately destroying treated tissue is defined as ablation failure. In targeting failure the energy is not adequately applied to the tumor spatially and selection failure occurs when a patient was wrongfully selected for FT. No definition of biochemical recurrence can be recommended based on the current data. Important definitions for outcome measures are potency (minimum IIEF-5 score of 21), incontinence (new need for pads or leakage) and deterioration in urinary function (increase in IPSS >5 points). No agreement on the best quality of life tool was established, but UCLA-EPIC and EORTC-QLQ-30 were most commonly supported by the experts. A complete overview of statements is presented in the text.ConclusionFocal therapy is an emerging field of PCa therapeutics. Standardization of definitions helps to create comparable research results and facilitate clear communication in clinical practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00345-016-1782-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionSmartphones are increasingly playing a role in healthcare and previous studies assessing medical applications (apps) have raised concerns about lack of expert involvement and low content accuracy. However, there are no such studies in Urology. We reviewed Urology apps with the aim of assessing the level of participation of healthcare professionals (HCP) and scientific Urology associations in their development.Material and MethodsA systematic search was performed on PubMed, Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store, for Urology apps, available in English. Apps were reviewed by three graders to determine the app’s platform, target customer, developer, app type, app category, price and the participation of a HCP or a scientific Urology association in the development.ResultsThe search yielded 372 apps, of which 150 were specific for Urology. A fifth of all apps had no HCP involvement (20.7%) and only a third had been developed with a scientific Urology association (34.7%). The lowest percentage of HCP (13.4%) and urological association (1.9%) involvement was in apps designed for the general population. Furthermore, there was no contribution from an Urology society in "Electronic Medical Record" nor in "Patient Information" apps. A limitation of the study is that only Android and iOS apps were reviewed.ConclusionsDespite the increasing Mobile Health (mHealth) market, this is the first study that demonstrates the lack of expert participation in the design of Urology apps, particularly in apps designed for the general public. Until clear regulation is enforced, the urological community should help regulate app development. Maintaining a register of certified apps or issuing an official scientific seal of approval could improve overall app quality. We propose that urologists become stakeholders in mHealth, shaping future app design and promoting peer-review app validation.