Search

Abstract The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate risk factors for 3-years mortality after hospital discharge in all inpatients admitted to a general hospital in Milano, Italy. A total of 2580 consecutive patients admitted to Ospedale San Paolo, July 1 to December 31, 2012, for several classes of diseases (internal medicine, cancer, infectious diseases, trauma and surgery, pneumonia, and heart diseases) were studied. Age, total disease, type of admission, length of admission, age-adjusted Charlson index, prognostic nutritional index (PNI), and full blood count were evaluated. Univariate Cox models were used to evaluate the association between variables and death. Of the 2580 consecutive patients (age 66.8 ± 19.36 years, mean ± SD), 920 died within 3 years after discharge. At univariate analysis, all investigated variables, except sex and lymphocytes, were associated with patient death. Stepwise regression analyses revealed that the age-adjusted Charlson index or age plus total diseases, type of admission, number of admissions, and PNI were significant risk factors in the whole sample and in some classes of disease. Results were superimposable when considering death from date of admission instead of date of discharge, meaning that in-hospital death was not relevant to the total death count (115 out of 902). Seriousness of baseline conditions represents the major risk factor for mortality in most classes of disease, and possibly influences other predictors, such as type of admission and length of stay. This suggests that the current model of hospital admission might be improved, for instance, through comprehensive care at home, instead of hospital admission, or before admission.

Introduction: Novel laser technologies have been developed for the minimally invasive surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of MOSESTM technology versus the thulium fiber laser (TFL) in patients with BPH undergoing transurethral enucleation of the prostate. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of eighty-two patients who underwent transurethral enucleation of the prostate using MOSESTM or TFL technologies from August 2020 to September 2021. Preoperative and intraoperative parameters, in addition to postoperative outcomes, were collected and analyzed. Results: Twenty patients underwent transurethral enucleation of the prostate with TFL, while 62 had MOSESTM HoLEP. No statistically significant difference in preoperative characteristics was observed between the groups. Patients in the TFL group had longer median enucleation, hemostasis, and morcellation times (p < 0.001) than those in the MOSESTM cohort. The longer morcellation time of TFL is mostly related to less visibility. The postoperative outcomes IPSS, QoL, Qmax, and post void residual (PVR), were comparable between the groups at 1, 3 and 6 months. The incidence of urge urinary incontinence (p = 0.79), stress urinary incontinence (p = 0.97), and hospital readmission rates (p = 0.1) were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions: A satisfactory safety and efficacy profile with comparable postoperative outcomes was demonstrated for both techniques; though, MOSESTM technology was superior to TFL in terms of shorter overall operative time.

Introduction and Objective. We aimed to evaluate urinary functional outcomes of top-down holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in patients who underwent transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) compared to patients with primary BPH. Materials and Methods. We carried out a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent top-down HoLEP for the management of recurrent BPH at our institution. Patients who had previously undergone TURP were assigned to group I, while those with no history of prostate surgery were allocated to group II. Preoperative clinical characteristics, enucleation time, resected tissue weight, morcellation time, energy used, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded and statistically analyzed. Patients were followed up postoperatively at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The evaluation included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life assessment (QoL), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine test (PVR), and continence status. Results. Two hundred and sixty-nine patients were included in this study. Group I consisted of 68 patients with recurrent BPH, while group II included 201 patients. There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics between both groups. The median enucleation time for group I (67.5 min (25–200)) was not significantly longer than that for group II (60 min (19–165) (p=0.25)). Operative outcomes, including morcellation time, resected weight, catheter duration, and hospital stay, were comparable between both groups. At 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, all urinary functional outcomes showed significant improvement, and there were no significant differences between the two groups. At 3 months’ follow-up, two patients in group I and three patients in group II experienced stress urinary incontinence (SUI). At the last follow-up visit, one patient from group I presented with persistent SUI. Conclusions. For managing recurrent and nonrecurrent cases of BPH, top-down HoLEP is safe with comparable urinary functional outcomes. Patients with a history of previous prostate surgery can be counselled that their prior transurethral procedure does not reduce the benefits of HoLEP.

Background: In 2018, our Institute launched the Diagnostic Assessment Program (DAP) for prostate cancer. It enabled quick access to a urologist for patients presented to family physician with elevated PSA and allowed fast multidisciplinary patient care. We aim to document our data over 2 years in comparison to data before implementation of DAP and its impact on the degree of adherence to Canadian guidelines. Methods: From April 2016 to April 2020, 880 patients who were evaluated for prostate cancer at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (TBRHSC) were included in this study. Patients’ characteristics, clinical data, waiting times and line of treatment before and after implementation of DAP were calculated and statistically analysed. Results: The median waiting time to urology consultation was significantly reduced from 68 (IQR 27-168) days to 34 (23-44) days (p < 0.001). The time from patient’s referral to prostate biopsy decreased substantially from 34 (20-66) days to 18(11- 25) days after DAP (p < 0.001). After DAP, the percentage of Gleason 6 detected prostate cancers were significantly increased (19.7% to 30%) (p = 0.02). After DAP, rate for intermediate-risk patients elected for external beam radiotherapy (from 53.5% to 57.9%, p = 0.53) and radical prostatectomy (from 34.5% to 39.4%, p = 0.47) increased. More compliance to Canadian guidelines was observed in intermediate risk patients (88% vs 97.3%, p =.008). Conclusions: Implementation of DAP has led to a notable reduction of waiting time to urology consult and prostate biopsy. There is significant increase in Gleason 6 detected prostate cancer. Increased compliance to Canadian guidelines was detected in intermediate risk patients.