ObjectiveTo evaluate outcomes of the first 18 patients treated with robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RA-RPLND) for non-seminomatous germ cell tumours (NSGCT) and paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) at our institution. Patients and MethodsBetween March 2008 and May 2013, 17 patients underwent RA-RPLND for NSGCT and one for paratesticular RMS. Data were collected retrospectively on patient demographics, preoperative tumour characteristics, and perioperative outcomes including open conversion rate, lymph node (LN) yield, rate of positive LNs, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of stay (LOS). Perioperative outcomes were compared between patients receiving primary RA-RPLND vs post-chemotherapy RA-RPLND. Medium-term outcomes of tumour recurrence rate and maintenance of antegrade ejaculation were recorded. ResultsRA-RPLND was completed robotically in 15 of 18 (83%) patients. LNs were positive in eight of 18 patients (44%). The mean LN yield was 22 LNs. For cases completed robotically, the mean operative time was 329 min, EBL was 103 mL, and LOS was 2.4 days. At a mean (range) follow-up of 22 (1-58) months, there were no retroperitoneal recurrences and two of 17 (12%) patients with NSGCT had pulmonary recurrences. Antegrade ejaculation was maintained in 91% of patients with a nerve-sparing approach. Patients receiving primary RA-RPLND had shorter operative times compared with those post-chemotherapy (311 vs 369 min, P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in LN yield (22 vs 18 LNs, P = 0.34), EBL (100 vs 313 mL, P = 0.13), or LOS (2.75 vs 2.2 days, P = 0.36). ConclusionThis initial selected case series of RA-RPLND shows that the procedure is safe, reproducible, and feasible for stage I-IIB NSGCT and RMS in the hands of experienced robotic surgeons. Larger studies are needed to confirm the diagnostic and therapeutic utility of this technique.

No abstract

No abstract

To compare the enucleation efficiency of Moses 2.0 with non-Moses technology in patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). Patients and MethodsA double-blinded, randomised study of patients undergoing HoLEP at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, using the Lumenis Pulse TM 120H laser system. Patients were randomised to either right lobe enucleation using Moses 2.0 and left lobe enucleation using non-Moses, or the opposite. The primary outcome was individual lobe enucleation efficiency. Secondary outcomes included individual lobe laser time, laser energy, individual enucleation and haemostasis laser energies, and fibre burn back. Two independent reviewers watched videos of the procedures and provided a subjective evaluation of the technologies. ResultsA total of 27 patients were included in the study. For the entire cohort, Moses 2.0 had less fibre degradation (3.5 vs 16.8 mm, P < 0.01) compared to non-Moses. When HoLEP procedures were performed by an expert, Moses 2.0 resulted in shorter enucleation time (21 vs 36.7 min, P = 0.016) and higher enucleation efficiency (1.75 vs 1.05 g/min, P = 0.05) compared to non-Moses. When HoLEP was performed by trainees, the Moses 2.0 cohort had a shorter haemostasis laser time (4.1 vs 9 min, P = 0.035) compared to the non-Moses. Fibre degradation was lower with Moses 2.0 compared to non-Moses for both experts and trainees. Moses 2.0 received a higher score than the standard technology for the incision sharpness, fibre control, tissue separation, tissue damage, haemostasis, visibility, and charring. The overall inter-observer correlation coefficient was 0.63. ConclusionMoses 2.0 has higher enucleation efficiency compared to non-Moses when used by experts. The subjective evaluation favoured Moses 2.0.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract