Matthew T. Gettman

Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension Associated With Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Renal and Proximal Ureteral Stones at 19 Years of Followup

PURPOSE SWL has revolutionized the management of nephrolithiasis and it is a preferred treatment for uncomplicated renal and proximal ureteral calculi. Since its introduction in 1982, conflicting reports of early adverse effects have been published. However, to our knowledge the long-term medical effects associated with SWL are unknown. We evaluated these adverse medical effects associated with SWL for renal and proximal ureteral stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS Chart review identified 630 patients treated with SWL at our institution in 1985. Questionnaires were sent to 578 patients who were alive in 2004. The response rate was 58.9%. Respondents were matched by age, sex and year of presentation to a cohort of patients with nephrolithiasis who were treated nonsurgically. RESULTS At 19 years of followup hypertension was more prevalent in the SWL group (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03, 2.10, p = 0.034). The development of hypertension was related to bilateral treatment (p = 0.033). In the SWL group diabetes mellitus developed in 16.8% of patients. Patients treated with SWL were more likely to have diabetes mellitus than controls (OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.73 to 6.02, p <0.001). Multivariate analysis controlling for change in body mass index showed a persistent risk of diabetes mellitus in the SWL group (OR 3.75, 95% CI 1.56 to 9.02, p = 0.003). Diabetes mellitus was related to the number of administered shocks and treatment intensity (p = 0.005 and 0.007). CONCLUSIONS At 19 years of followup SWL for renal and proximal ureteral stones was associated with the development of hypertension and diabetes mellitus. The incidence of these conditions was significantly higher than in a cohort of conservatively treated patients with nephrolithiasis.

Consensus statement of the consortium for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery

Inderbir S. Gill • Arnold P. Advincula • Monish Aron • Jeffrey Caddedu • David Canes • Paul G. Curcillo II • Mihir M. Desai • John C. Evanko • Tomasso Falcone • Victor Fazio • Matthew Gettman • Andrew A. Gumbs • Georges-Pascal Haber • Jihad H. Kaouk • Fernando Kim • Stephanie A. King • Jeffrey Ponsky • Feza Remzi • Homero Rivas • Alexander Rosemurgy • Sharona Ross • Philip Schauer • Rene Sotelo • Jose Speranza • John Sweeney • Julio Teixeira

Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques

To assess the perioperative complications and early oncological results in a comparative study matching open radical retropubic (RRP) and robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) groups.

Transvaginal laparoscopic nephrectomy: Development and feasibility in the porcine model

OBJECTIVES To assess feasibility of laparoscopic nephrectomy completed entirely by way of the vagina in the porcine model. METHODS Six transvaginal laparoscopic nephrectomies were performed in female farm pigs. Two acute and two 1-week survival animals were used for the study. Before killing the survival animals, a second transvaginal laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed on the remaining renal unit. For one renal unit, the laparoscopic nephrectomy was completed entirely by way of the vagina. In five renal units, a single, 5-mm transabdominal trocar for the laparoscope was required to facilitate visualization. RESULTS The operative time for the procedure completed entirely by way of the vagina was 360 minutes, and the mean operative time for the procedures requiring placement of a single 5-mm transabdominal trocar was 210 minutes. In 5 cases, dissection, control of the renal pedicle, and extraction of the kidney were successfully completed using a transvaginal approach. In 1 acute case, an uncontrollable vascular injury occurred during placement of the Endo-GIA stapler, resulting in exsanguination. In all other cases, the mean blood loss was less than 30 mL, and no significant perioperative complications were noted. Both survival pigs had normal bowel and bladder function before being killed. CONCLUSIONS Complete transvaginal laparoscopic dissection and nephrectomy is feasible in the porcine model using a single, 5-mm abdominal trocar for visualization. A completely transvaginal laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed once, but limitations imposed by the porcine anatomy and by the currently available instrumentation made the procedure very cumbersome. Additional development of this technique in animal models and improved instrumentation is needed before clinical assessment is warranted.

Laparoendoscopic Single-site and Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery in Urology: A Critical Analysis of the Literature ☆

CONTEXT Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) have been developed to benefit patients by enabling surgeons to perform scarless surgery. OBJECTIVE To summarize and critically analyze the available evidence on the current status and future perspectives of LESS and NOTES in urology. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in June 2010 using the Medline database to identify all publications relating to NOTES and LESS in urology. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS In urology, NOTES has been completed experimentally via transgastric, transvaginal, transcolonic, and transvesical routes. Initial clinical experience has shown that NOTES urologic surgery using currently available instruments is indeed possible. Nevertheless, because of the immaturity of the instrumentation, early cases have demanded high technical virtuosity. LESS can safely and effectively be performed in a variety of urologic settings. As clinical experience increases, expanding indications are expected to be documented and the efficacy of the procedure to improve. So far, the quality of evidence of all available studies remains low, mostly being small case series or case-control studies from selected centers. Thus, the only objective benefit of LESS remains the improved cosmetic outcome. Prospective, randomized studies are largely awaited to determine which LESS procedures will be established and which are unlikely to stand the test of time. Technology advances hold promise to minimize the challenging technical nature of scarless surgery. In this respect, robotics is likely to drive a major paradigm shift in the development of LESS and NOTES. CONCLUSIONS NOTES is still an investigational approach in urology. LESS has proven to be immediately applicable in the clinical field, being safe and feasible in the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Development of instrumentation and application of robotic technology are expected to define the actual role of these techniques in minimally invasive urologic surgery.

Nomenclature of Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES™) and Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery (LESS) Procedures in Urology

INTRODUCTION The twenty first century has witnessed some amazing advancements in surgery. In urology minimally invasive surgery has become the standard treatment for many disease processes and procedures. One of the newest innovations into this field has been the development of Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) and Laparoendoscopic Single-site Surgery (LESS). While the practice and application of these new techniques are in their infancy, there has been a great deal of confusion regarding the nomenclature and terminology associated with these procedures. The aim of this publication is to attempt to define the many issues associated with the standardization of terminology for these procedures in order to promote effective scientific progress and communication. MATERIALS AND METHODS A literature search using Medline and pubmed focusing on all terminology to describe NOTES and LESS from 1990 to 2008 was done. In addition, various acronyms were searched using four separate online acronym databases. The information was recorded by number of citations and by the number of citations specific to the urologic literature. Based on common usage, definitions and criteria were developed to describe these procedures for current scientific publication. These terms were then collectively reviewed and agreed upon by the Urologic NOTES Working Group as a platform for consensus to begin the arduous process of standardization. RESULTS There is wide variation in the terminology and use of acronyms for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery and laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery. The keyword literature search uncovered 8710 citations from MEDLINE and pubmed, with 363 citations specific to urology. There was significant overlap in the search of different terms. The search of established abbreviation and acronym databases revealed many citations, but relatively few specific to urology. CONCLUSION Standardization of the nomenclature applied to natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) is essential as the body of literature continues to grow in order to allow clear and precise scientific communication. As the techniques continue to evolve, we propose that NOTES and LESS be designated as the common terms to define these new procedures in urology.

Management Of Ureteral Calculi: A Cost Comparison And Decision Making Analysis

PURPOSE We compared the cost of treatment strategies for ureteral calculi using a decision tree model. MATERIALS AND METHODS A comprehensive literature review was performed to determine the average success rate of each of 3 treatment modalities, namely observation, ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy. Using these success rates decision analysis models were constructed using Data 3.5 software (TreeAge Software, Inc., Williamstown, Massachusetts) to estimate the cost of treatment and followup for each of the 3 treatments. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of varying individual probabilities of success and costs, and 2-way sensitivity analysis was done to evaluate the model for a wide range of potential costs and success rates of ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy. In addition, a table was constructed to enable individual surgeons and institutions to determine the cost impact of ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy in their unique clinical scenarios. RESULTS Observation was the least costly pathway if no financial cost, such as emergency room visits, was incurred by failed observation. Ureteroscopy was less costly than shock wave lithotripsy for stones at all ureteral locations. A cost difference between the 2 modalities of approximately

Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons.

1,440,

A comparison of Laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard Laparoscopic techniques: Initial clinical results

1,670 and

Consensus statement on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and single-incision laparoscopic surgery: heralding a new era in urology?

1,750 was noted for proximal, mid and distal ureteral calculi, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of ureteroscopy would have to increase by more than