ABSTRACT: The incidence of postprostatectomy incontinence (PPI) has been notoriously difficult to assess. We investigated the contemporary
incidence of PPI and the impact of PPI on health-related quality of life. Large studies with patient self-reported outcomes
and more than 12months of follow-up demonstrated that 80% to 98.5% of men report using 0 or 1 pad per day, and that in the
setting of cancer control, most men who use 0 or 1 pad per day consider themselves continent.
KeywordsRadical prostatectomy-Postprostatectomy incontinence-Stress urinary incontinence-Stress incontinence-Prostate cancer
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports 04/2012; 5(3):135-141.
ABSTRACT: To determine if adjustment of prostate-specific antigen velocity (PSAV) for variation improves prediction of cancer in men with previous negative prostate biopsy.
Records of men undergoing prostate biopsy between 1999 and 2004 by a single urologist were reviewed to identify men with at least three follow up PSA measurements. Patients with atypia, high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer on baseline biopsy were excluded. Men were rebiopsied if perceived to have rising PSA. Men with cancer, no cancer, or no repeat biopsy were compared for PSAV and a new parameter, PSAV%/Variation. PSAV was calculated by linear regression, and adjusted to percent change (PSAV%). Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curve.
Of 118 men who met inclusion criteria, 32 had repeat biopsies. Nine biopsies were positive (group 1) and 22 were negative (group 2). The PSAV%, PSAV, and PSAV%/Variation for groups 1 versus 2 was 22.9% and 1.7% (p = 0.004), 1.12 versus 0.4 ng/ml/year (p = 0.007), and 1.07 verus 0.03 (p < 0.001), respectively. PSAV%/Variation had the largest area under the curve (0.881), compared with PSAV (0.744) and PSAV% (0.784). At cut off of 0.77, specificity was 86.4% and sensitivity was 87.5% for PSAV%/Variation. At the same sensitivity level, the specificities of PSAV% and PSAV were 77.3% and 63.6%, respectively.
Correction for variation could potentially make PSAV a more reliable parameter in patients with prior negative biopsy. The results of our preliminary study warrant further analysis in a larger prospective cohort.
The Canadian Journal of Urology 07/2009; 16(3):4655-9. · 0.64 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: Adrenal-sparing surgery is an effective and safe alternative to total adrenalectomy for small, benign adrenal lesions and may decrease the risk of the development of adrenal insufficiency. While series of laparoscopic partial adrenalectomy have demonstrated safety and excellent long-term outcomes, there have been no reports of a complete robot-assisted partial adrenalectomy. We believe that robotic techniques may be useful for this procedure, given the complex vascularity and small size of the adrenal gland. Furthermore, there have been no reports of minimally invasive partial adrenalectomy for management of small, isolated adrenal metastasis. We report a case of robot-assisted partial adrenalectomy in a patient with a history of renal-cell carcinoma who had previously undergone contralateral adrenalectomy for metastasis. We report our surgical technique and short-term follow-up for our patient. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a complete robot-assisted partial adrenalectomy and the first report of minimally invasive partial adrenalectomy for an isolated adrenal metastasis.
Journal of endourology / Endourological Society 05/2009; 23(4):651-4. · 1.75 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: Early outcomes of the male sling to correct post-prostatectomy incontinence have been promising in select patients. Long-term data are lacking to determine whether the male sling is as effective as the artificial urinary sphincter, which is the current gold standard. Because the male sling offers the significant advantage of avoiding a mechanical device but without established success, we determined the patient preference for the male sling vs the artificial urinary sphincter.
We reviewed the charts of 133 men with post-prostatectomy incontinence who underwent the first procedure to correct incontinence. After urodynamics the surgeon recommended an artificial urinary sphincter or a male sling and patients were told the artificial urinary sphincter satisfaction rate and shorter term data on the male sling. Patients with high grade post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight greater than 400 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive an artificial urinary sphincter, those with moderate post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight 100 to 400 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive an artificial urinary sphincter or a male sling and those with mild post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight less than 100 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive a male sling.
A total of 84 male sling (63%) and 49 artificial urinary sphincter (37%) procedures were performed. The surgeon recommendation was an artificial urinary sphincter in 63 men (47%) and a male sling in 46 (35%). A total of 24 men (18%) were given the option of either procedure. All patients recommended to receive a male sling chose it. When an artificial urinary sphincter was recommended, 75% of patients chose it, while 25% chose a male sling. When given a choice, 92% of patients chose a male sling and 8% chose an artificial urinary sphincter.
Most patients adhere to the surgeon recommendation. When men with post-prostatectomy incontinence are offered the choice of an artificial urinary sphincter vs a male sling, the opportunity to avoid using a mechanical device is preferable to undergoing a well established procedure. Men who strongly wish to avoid a mechanical device are willing to go against the surgeon recommendation for an artificial urinary sphincter.
The Journal of urology 02/2009; 181(3):1231-5. · 4.02 Impact Factor