Over 30 years ago, the preprocessor cpp was developed to extend the programming language C by lightweight metaprogramming capabilities. Despite its error-proneness and low abstraction level, the preprocessor is still widely used in present-day software projects to implement variable software. However, not much is known about how cpp is employed to implement variability. To address this issue, we have analyzed forty open-source software projects written in C. Specifically, we answer the following questions: How does program size influence variability? How complex are extensions made via cpp's variability mechanisms? At which level of granularity are extensions applied? Which types of extension occur? These questions revive earlier discussions on program comprehension and refactoring in the context of the preprocessor. To provide answers, we introduce several metrics measuring the variability, complexity, granularity, and types of extension applied by preprocessor directives. Based on the collected data, we suggest alternative implementation techniques. Our data set is a rich source for rethinking language design and tool support.

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is technically demanding, with an initially longer operative time, higher incidence of rectal injuries and urinary leakage. The overall outcome after 219 cases favors the laparoscopic approach. Consequently, at our institution laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has become the method of choice.

No abstract

According to our experience the incidence of local recurrence and the risk of port site metastases is low and seems to be mainly related to the aggressiveness of the tumor and immunosuppression status of the patient, respectively rather than to technical aspects of the laparoscopic approach.

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty yields an efficacy similar to that of open surgery. The inferior success of laser endopyelotomy even in optimally selected cases and the increasing expertise with endoscopic suturing may favor laparoscopic pyeloplasty with or without robotic assistance in the future.

Study Type – Therapy (RCT) Level of Evidence 1b What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? Short‐term efficacy is similar but B‐TURP is preferable due to a more favourable safety. a) first multicentre RCT, b) adequate quality, c) experience with a new bipolar device, d) morbidity standardize using the modified Clavien classification system. OBJECTIVE • To compare the perioperative efficacy and safety of bipolar (B‐) and monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (M‐TURP) in an international multicentre double‐blind randomized controlled trial using the bipolar system AUTOCON® II 400 ESU for the first time. PATIENTS AND METHODS • From July 2006 to June 2009, consecutive transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) candidates with benign prostatic obstruction were prospectively recruited in four academic urological centres, randomized 1:1 into an M‐TURP or B‐TURP arm and followed up for 6 weeks after surgery. • A total of 295 eligible patients were enrolled. • Of these, 279 patients received treatment (M‐TURP, n= 138; B‐TURP, n= 141) and were analysed for immediate postoperative outcomes and perioperative safety. In all, 268 patients (M‐TURP, n= 129; B‐TURP, n= 139) were analysed for efficacy, which was quantified using changes in maximum urinary flow rate, postvoid residual urine volume and International Prostate Symptom Score at 6 weeks compared with baseline. Safety was estimated using sodium and haemoglobin level changes immediately after surgery and perioperative complication occurrence graded according to the modified Clavien classification system. • Secondary outcomes included operation‐resection time, resection rate, capsular perforation and catheterization time. RESULTS • No significant differences were detected between each study arm except that postoperative decreases in sodium levels favoured B‐TURP (–0.8 vs –2.5 mmol/L, for B‐TURP and M‐TURP, respectively; P= 0.003). The lowest values were 131 mmol/L (B‐TURP) and 106 mmol/L (M‐TURP). Nine patients ranged between 125 and 130 mmol/L and the values for three patients were <125 mmol/L after M‐TURP. The greatest decrease was 9 mmol/L after B‐TURP (two patients). In nine patients (M‐TURP) the decrease was between 9 and 34 mmol/L. • These results were not translated into a significant difference in TUR‐syndrome rates (1/138: 0.7% vs 0/141: 0.0%, for M‐TURP and B‐TURP, respectively; P= 0.495). CONCLUSIONS • In contrast to the previous available evidence, no clinical advantage for B‐TURP was shown. Perioperative efficacy, safety and secondary outcomes were comparable between study arms. • The potentially improved safety of B‐TURP that is attributed to the elimination of dilutional hyponatraemia risk, a risk still present with M‐TURP, did not translate into a significant clinical benefit in experienced hands.

At centers of expertise laparoscopic radical prostatectomy may provide an oncological outcome similar to that of the open procedure. However, it offers the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

No abstract