Tag Archive for: systematic review

You are here: / systematic review

Posts

Editorial: RARP and a Parachute

/by

Radical prostatectomy is probably the most scrutinized, debated and re‐invented procedure in the field of urology. This is with good reason. Dr Hugh Hampton Young gave the first formal account of a radical treatment for prostate cancer in 1905. It was a procedure performed perineally with the prime intention of total cancer extirpation. The oncological results were tremendous given the nascency of the procedure. Functional outcomes, however, were less so, with only ~25% of the patients achieving urinary continence and almost none achieving potency 1. Seminal studies undertaken by Drs Patrick C. Walsh and Pieter J. Donker in the 1980s led to the next major advance in technique: nerve‐sparing. It lead to dramatic improvements in sexual and urinary function preservation, with urinary continence achieved in upwards of 90% and potency in upwards of 60% of patients 2, 3. Nerve‐sparing retropubic radical prostatectomy was rapidly adopted by urologists across the world. No randomized trial was conducted as the operation ‘made sense’, and it would have been unethical to offer patients an alternative, inferior operation. Retropubic radical prostatectomy, however, remained a morbid operation that was difficult to master; 1 200 mL blood loss and 20% incontinence, 15% stricture and 60–90% erectile dysfunction rates were the norm. Robot‐assisted surgery changed much of this. This surgery was perfected and popularized by Dr Mani Menon and his team at the Henry Ford Hospital. Blood loss dropped to ~100 mL, and incontinence and stricture rates today are ~1–5% with potency rates between 70% and 80% 4.

In the systematic review by Ilic et al. 5 trials that compared open with minimally invasive radical prostatectomy were evaluated. The authors are commended for combing through vast quantities of data to arrive at the final sample of two clinical trials (one laparoscopic, one robot‐assisted). The authors found no data on oncological endpoints. With respect to functional outcomes, the data reported in their systematic review are essentially from the recent Yaxley trial. It is true that randomized controlled trials form the backbone of medical progress, but they must be interpreted with care. The Yaxley trial has been criticized for comparing surgeons of vastly varying surgical expertise (1 500‐case experience for open prostatectomies, 200‐case experience for robot‐assisted prostatectomies), having a small sample size (~150 patients in each arm) and having a limited follow‐up (3 months). In line with this, Dr Gordon Smith has eloquently argued about the judicious use of randomized trials in evidence‐based medicine in his classic paper on parachutes and gravitational challenge 6. It is our sincere belief that robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy is a procedure in the service of the patients, and we believe that anyone who has performed both an open radical prostatectomy and a robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy would agree. Operating deep in the pelvis and being able to visualize the anatomy up‐close with robotic assistance ‘makes sense’, much like the anatomical radical prostatectomy did in the 1980s 2, 3.

‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’, the old saying goes. In case of radical prostatectomy, the converse has been true, for the most part. The procedure is still not perfect, and nuances need to be worked out. Nonetheless, over the last century, radicalprogress has been made in the surgery for prostate; the two issues that now remain to be solved are: improving potency and improving cost‐effectiveness. With the potential arrival of competing robotic systems and improvements in technology, the costs associated with robotic surgery may become less of an issue in the future. With regard to potency, focal therapies, whether surgical or otherwise, hold promise.

Akshay Sood, Firas Abdollah, and Mani Menon
Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA

 

 

References
  • 1 Young HH. The cure of cancer of the prostate by radical perineal prostatectomy (prostato‐seminal Vesiculectomy): History, Literature and Statistics of Young’s Operation1. J Urol 1945; 53: 188–252

 

 

 

  • 4 Menon M, Dalela D, Jamil M et al. Functional recovery, oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy: an evidence‐based analysis comparing the Retzius sparing and standard approaches. J Urol 2018; 199: 1210–7

 

  • 5 Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, Jung JH, Murphy D, Frydenberg M. Laparoscopic and robot‐assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review. BJU Int 2018; 121: 845–53

 

  • 6 Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2003; 20: 1459–61

 

The challenge with systematic reviews of non-randomised studies in urology

/1 Comment/by

In this issue, BJU International has made the conscious decision to publish a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) by Guo et al. [1]to inform the question of whether patients undergoing nephrouretectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma are at increased risk of worse oncological outcomes. This question was also the topic of a similar review by Marchioni et al. [2] published earlier this year in this journal. Both studies were submitted around the same time and underwent independent, parallel peer review that resulted in different editorial decisions. Given their similarity in methodological quality they both deserved similar consideration for publication, which the journal is hereby honouring.

At the same time, this provides the unique opportunity to reflect on methodological developments in the field and BJU International‘s efforts to raise the bar of the methodological quality of SRs, which include the provision of an Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) rating [3]. AMSTAR is a validated tool to assess the components of a SR on an 11-point scale (0–11), with higher scores reflecting higher methodological rigor. An updated version of this tool has recently been provided, which offers greater clarity in interpretation [4]. Another related instrument that has become available is the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), which assesses the study limitations in SRs (i.e., the relevance of the review, concerns with the review process, and potential bias introduced during the review) [5]. Meanwhile, while it would be premature to claim success, it is our impression that BJU International’s initiative to provide AMSTAR ratings is making a valuable contribution in raising awareness for such methodological issues and improving the transparency of published reviews.

As BJU International takes a lead in promoting high-quality SRs in urology, the journal has seen a considerable increase in the number of submissions, including SRs of non-randomised studies (NRS). Whilst much of what we practice on a day-to-day basis is based on evidence from NRS, studies of those designs have infrequently been included in the Cochrane Library, which has pioneered much of the underlying methodology. This is for a few reasons: First, the ‘garbage in–garbage out’ phenomenon; if the underlying individual studies only provide very low-quality evidence, combining these studies will rarely enhance the confidence we place in their results. Second, the need for methodological advances in the assessment and analyses of NRS. Third, when high-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is available, it may be inefficient to review the NRS literature.

However, progress is being made on the methodology front. Members of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group are credited with having developed an approach for rating the quality or certainty of evidence from randomised and NRS to inform decision making [6]. While a body of evidence from RCTs, which starts as high-quality evidence, may be downgraded for study limitations, a body of evidence from NRS, which starts as low-quality evidence, may be upgraded for one of three reasons, most commonly for large magnitude of effect [7]. The underlying assumption is that, whilst we have to assume that bias is likely to be present in these studies, it is unlikely to explain the entire observed effect.

It nevertheless remains critical to assess the risk of bias of NRS. While the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (as used in both of these SRs) is a widely used instrument to evaluate risk of bias in NRS, it has critical limitations that the recently developed Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I) seeks to overcome [8]. ROBINS-I evaluates NRS by using a standardised comparison to an RCT (i.e. target trial) [9]. In this way, ROBINS-I captures the bias inherent to studies without proper randomisation or allocation concealment, namely the lack of a balance of known and unknown confounders and selection of participants. ROBINS-I allows users to fundamentally start all studies at the same quality level, providing the transparency requested by some SR authors conducting SRs of NRS.

While ureterorenoscopy before nephroureterectomy may indeed increase the risk of intravesical recurrence as the authors suggest, additional exploration would be needed to make a statement about the causality of the relationship. Guo et al. [1] conducted sensitivity analyses to describe the potential for bias introduced by confounders of previous bladder tumour history and bladder-cuff management, thereby increasing our confidence that the observed effect may be closer to the truth. It seems equally important to note that Guo et al. found no increased risk in cancer-specific, recurrence-free or overall survival, which are other outcomes of potentially greater patient importance.

Understanding the inherent limitations of NRS, and placing their findings into appropriate clinical context are critical to the conduct of SRs. Moving forward, BJU International will continue to seek out the highest quality reviews that make use of the best, up-to-date methodology. We hope that these efforts will both serve as a beacon for the research community, but more importantly, result in improved evidence-based care for our patients.

Philipp Dahm*, Jae Hung Jung† and Rebecca L. Morgan‡
*Department of Urology, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA, †Department of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine,
Wonju, Korea and ‡Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

 

References

 

1 Guo RQ, Hong P, Xiong GY et al. Impact of ureteroscopy before radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinomas on oncological outcomes: a meta-analysis. BJU Int 2018; 121: 184-93

 

2 Marchioni M, Primiceri G, Cindolo L et al. Impact of diagnostic ureteroscopy on intravesical recurrence in patients undergoing radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 2017; 120: 313–9

 

3 Dahm P. Raising the bar for systematic reviews with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). BJU Int 2017; 119: 193

 

4 Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008

 

5 Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 69: 225–34

 

6 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: what is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008; 336: 995–8

 

7 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1311–6

 

8 Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7: iii–x, 1–173

 

9 Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919

 

March 2017 #urojc summary: Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection with Radical Prostatectomy – Is there enough evidence for and against?

/by

The twitter-based international urology journal club @iurojc #urojc is back with a splash after a brief hiatus. For the March 2017 #urojc, a lively discussion takes the theme of pelvic node dissection (PLND) on radical prostatectomy (RP) reviewing a timely article by Nicola Fossati et al. The paper was made available open access courtesy of European Urology @EUplatinum.

A systematic review of the literature was performed including all comparative studies of both randomized and non randomized studies, with at least one experimental and one control arm. This summarised 66 studies including more than 250.000 patients with particular focus on different extents of pelvic lymphadenectomy as proposed by the European Association of Urology. Outcome measures studied included oncological features of biochemical recurrence, development of metastases, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. Adverse events were covered under secondary outcomes, both intra- and postoperatively observed. Finally, quality of PLND was addressed in terms of total number of nodes and total number of positive nodes. Risk of bias was assessed for all studies judging on basis of specific confounders.

The journal club ran for 48 hours from Sunday 5th march. The central question addressed is balance of benefits and drawbacks of lymph node dissection. The corresponding author of the manuscript, Steven Joniau from the University Hospitals of Leuven, Belgium highlighted the role of lymph nodes in prostate cancer recurrence.

However despite this idea, the benefit of PLND is heavily scrutinized from the start. Long term data from a single centre  suggested limited benefit.

 

However PLND has since earlier times been employed as a diagnostic tool, where an optimal template (presacral in addition to extended LND) may be optimal for staging and removal of lymph nodes.

Despite the current state of evidence, PLND is frequently mentioned in the various guidelines available for prostate cancer. However the exact situations when to employ them is questioned by some participants.

The various therapeutic options for lymph node metastases also coloured the discussion.

The discussion further continued to the important issue of morbidity, and the associated question of performing an extended PLND (ePLND).

Despite the current state of evidence, PLND is frequently mentioned in the various guidelines available for prostate cancer. However the exact situations when to employ them is questioned by some participants.

The

The discussion further continued to the important issue of morbidity, and the associated question of performing an extended PLND (ePLND).

The increasing use of PSMA PET/CT provided other spread pattern data to be considered. And finally temporal changes in PSA testing is observed to affect the need for LND.

 

From the poll which ran during the discussion, about half responders would perform extended PLND for staging, while the rest were divided almost equally between therapeutic benefit and adherence to guideline recommendations.

Probably all participants of the discussion agrees for the need of a proper randomised study addressing role of PLND.

At the end of a busy 48 hours, the discussion had been joined by top experts in the field of prostate cancer, generated more than 200 tweets and reached more than 700 thousand impressions the world over.

Yodi Soebadi (@yodisoebadi) is an Indonesian urologist, trained at Universitas Airlangga, currently pursuing doctoral research at KU Leuven in Belgium.

 

February Editorial: Raising the bar for systematic reviews with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

/by
The BJUI has a longstanding track record in promoting the dissemination of high-quality unbiased evidence and helping their readership to understand why the principles of evidence-based medicine matter. This devotion is witnessed by the work that goes into every issue of the journal, as well as past initiatives such as providing a level of evidence rating for clinical research articles or publishing educational articles such as the ‘Evidence-Based Urology in Practice’ series [1, 2].

Major foci for clinically oriented specialty journals are systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Systematic reviews have a preeminent role in guiding the practice of evidence medicine by addressing focused clinical questions in a systematic, transparent and reproducible manner. Defining criteria of a high-quality systematic review include: an a priori registered protocol, a comprehensive search of multiple sources including unpublished studies (to avoid publication bias), an assessment of the quality of evidence that goes beyond study design alone, and a thoughtful interpretation of the findings. Systematic reviews inform clinicians and patients at the point of care, form the foundation of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, and help shape health policy [3]. They also find frequent citation and can raise a journal’s impact factor. There is therefore more than one good reason for journals to care about the quality of systematic reviews.

Meanwhile, a study in this issue of the BJUI [4] shows that the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature is modest, varies substantially, and has failed to improve over time. This contrasts to randomised controlled trials’ reporting quality that appears to have improved substantially over time, probably due to increased awareness among clinical researchers, urology readers and journal reviewers [4, 5]. The study [4] used the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), a validated 11-item instrument, to measure the methodological quality of systematic reviews with higher scores reflecting better quality.

The authors [4] surveyed four major urological journals and compared the periods 2013–2015 to 2009–2012 and 1998–2008. Despite a dramatic increase in the number of systematic reviews published each year, methodological quality has stagnated with mean AMSTAR scores ± standard deviations of 4.8 ± 2.4 (2013–2015; n = 125), 5.4 ± 2.3 (2009–2012; n = 113) and 4.8 ± 2.0 (1998–2008; n = 57). The average systematic review therefore has deficits in over half the 11 AMSTAR criteria and is of only modest quality thereby undermining our confidence in their results. Although the mean AMSTAR score of 5.6 ± 2.9 for 25 systematic reviews published in the BJUI in 2013–2015 compared favourably to similar studies in other leading urology journals, the difference was not statistically significant.

What are we going to do about it? Inspired by these findings, the BJUI is launching a new initiative to raise awareness for the issue of methodological quality of systematic reviews among its readership and raise the bars for its contributors. Future systematic review authors will be asked to submit an AMSTAR-based checklist to provide enhanced transparency about its methods that will be reviewed as part of the editorial review process. These include documentation of an a priori written protocol and ideally, registration of the systematic review through the Cochrane Collaboration or the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Such a protocol should outline all important steps of the review process including the definition of outcomes, study inclusion and exclusion criteria, details about the literature search, study selection and data abstraction process, analytical approach including planned sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Authors should also rate the quality of evidence looking beyond study limitation alone by using an approach such as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), which recognises such additional domains such as imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness and publication bias [6]. Critical steps of the systematic review process should be completed in duplicate to guard against random and systematic error and authors should provide readers with the information about who funded the studies included in the review, as well as their own potential conflicts of interests. To guard against publication bias, systematic review authors should also search for ongoing trials and unpublished studies through registries and abstract proceedings.

It is understood that the methodological handiwork that goes into the planning, execution and reporting of a systematic review do not assure clinical relevance or newsworthiness, nor does it address any issues surrounding the limited quality of studies that the review may be summarising. However, it is nevertheless a sine quae no to assure readers that they can be confident of the results. The new BJUI initiative will raise awareness for the issue of systematic review quality by providing a summary AMSTAR score to accompany each article. We hope that with this initiative we will provide a beacon for other specialty journals to follow, with the goal of raising the bar for all published systematic reviews and ultimately leading to improved patient care.

Philipp Dahm

 

Department of Urology, Minneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System and University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN, USA

References

 

1 Dahm P, Preminger GM. Introducing levels of evidence to publications in urology. BJU Int 2007; 100: 246–7

 

2 Canfield SE, Dahm P. Introduction to a new series: advanced topics in evidence-based urologic oncology. Urol Oncol 2011; 29: 446

 

3 Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA 2014; 312: 171–9

 

4 HanJL, Gandhi S, Bockoven CG, Narayan VM, Dahm P. The landscape of systematic reviews in urology (1998 to 2015): an assessment of methodological quality. BJU Int 2016 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1111/bju.13653.

 

5 Narayan VM, Cone EB, Smith D, Scales CD Jr, Dahm P. Improved reporting of randomized controlled trials in the urologic literature. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 1044–9

 

6 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008; 336: 995–8

 

Article of the Week: Muscolofascial Reconstruction after RP

/by

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Dr. Francesco Alessandro Mistretta, discussing his paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Posterior musculofascial reconstruction after radical prostatectomy: an updated systematic review and a meta-analysis

 

Angelica A.C. Grasso*, Francesco A. Mistretta*, Marco Sandri†, Gabriele Cozzi*, Elisa De Lorenzis*, Marco Rosso*, Giancarlo Albo*, Franco Palmisano*, Alex Mottrie‡, Alexander Haese§, Markus Graefen§, Rafael Coelho, Vipul R. Patel¶ and Bernardo Rocco*

 

*Department of Urology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Milan, Italy, †DMS StatLab, Data Methods and Systems Statistical Laboratory, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy, ‡OLV Robotic Surgery Institute, Aalst, Belgium, §Martini Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Clinic Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, and Global Robotics Institute, Florida Hospital-Celebration Health Celebration, University of Central Florida School of Medicine, Orlando, FL, USA

 

Read the full article
To evaluate the influence of posterior musculofascial plate reconstruction (PR) on early return of continence after radical prostatectomy (RP); an updated systematic review of the literature. A systematic review of the literature was performed in June 2015, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and searching Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science databases. We searched the terms posterior reconstruction prostatectomy, double layer anastomosis prostatectomy across the ‘Title’ and ‘Abstract’ fields of the records, with the following limits: humans, gender (male), and language (English). The authors reviewed the records to identify studies comparing cohorts of patients who underwent RP with or without restoration of the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter. A meta-analysis of the risk ratios estimated using data from the selected studies was performed. In all, 21 studies were identified, including three randomised controlled trials. The overall analysis of comparative studies showed that PR improved early continence recovery at 3–7, 30, and 90 days after catheter removal, while the continence rate at 180 days was statistically but not clinically affected. Statistically significantly lower anastomotic leakage rates were described after PR. There were no significant differences for positive surgical margins rates or for complications such as acute urinary retention and bladder neck stricture. The analysis confirms the benefits at 30 days after catheter removal already discussed in the review published in 2012, but also shows a significant advantage in terms of urinary continence recovery in the first 90 days. A multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial is currently being conducted in several institutions around the world to better assess the effectiveness of PR in facilitating an earlier recovery of postoperative urinary continence.

 

Read more articles of the week

 

Editorial: The Jury on Posterior Muscolofascial Reconstruction is still out

/by

In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Grasso et al. [1] address the question of whether posterior muscolofascial reconstruction (PMR), the so-called Rocco stitch, positively affects urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. The relevance of the question to this structured form of inquiry is that individual studies to date have been inconclusive. We recognize Sir Archie Cochrane, who gave his name to the Cochrane Collaboration that pioneered the methods for conducting systematic reviews, for emphasizing the critical importance of looking at the entire body of evidence in a structured manner when seeking to answer a clinical question [2]. In the present study, which included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of variable methodological quality, a favourable impact of PMR across all postoperative time points (3–7 days, 30 days, 3 and 6 months) was observed. The effect was most pronounced early on at the time of catheter removal, when the patients undergoing PMR were nearly twice as likely as the control group (risk ratio 1.9; 95% CI 1.3–2.9) to be continent, thereby suggesting a major benefit of this approach. It should be noted, however, that this analysis was dominated by the observational studies, particularly retrospective observational studies, which offer the least degree of methodological rigor.

Even more important, therefore, than the act of pooling across studies is the rating of the quality of evidence for the body of evidence on an outcome-specific basis. Based on the GRADE approach, which has become the most widely endorsed framework for rating the quality of evidence, we would initially place a high and low level of confidence in a body of evidence drawn from RCTs and observational studies, respectively [3]. As a result, one might plan a separate analysis of those two groups of studies first, and only move to pool them if their results were similar. In this case, the results from the RCTs and observational studies were different, with prospective and retrospective studies reporting larger, probably exaggerated effect sizes; however, it is also understood that other aspects such as study limitation (risk of bias), inconsistency, impression, indirectness and risk publication bias may lower our confidence in the effect estimates from RCTs [4]. Focusing on the body of evidence from RCTs alone (Table 1) we have ‘moderate’ confidence that PMR may not improve early continence at the time of catheter removal. Similarly, the few RCTs that contributed to the assessment of continence at later timepoints do not provide evidence that continence is affected favourably, although our confidence for those outcomes is only ‘low’ or ‘very low’, suggesting that future trials may change these estimates of effect. Meanwhile, it should be noted that none of the RCTs appeared to provide information on the potential downsides of PMR, such as rates of urinary retention or bladder neck contracture. As a result, enough uncertainty remains to state that the jury on PMR is still out; this is consistent with the authors’ call for a future high-quality trial, which is reportedly ongoing. While PMR is already widely used by open and robot-assisted prostatectomy surgeons around the globe, this example sheds light on current evidentiary standards of surgical innovation. Following the IDEAL recommendations, it would be much preferred if the urological community committed to well designed trials for novel surgical approaches and device-dependent interventions up front, before moving to widespread dissemination [5].

JulEOTW2

Read the full article

Philipp Dahm
Department of Urology, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Urology Section 112D and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

 

References

 

1 Grasso AAC, Mistretta FA, Sandri M et al. Posterior musculofascial reconstruction after radical prostatectomy: an updated systematic review and a meta-analysis. BJU Int 2016; 118: 20–34.

 

2 Hajebrahimi S, Dahm P, Buckingham J. Evidence-based urology in practice: the cochrane library. BJU Int 2009; 104: 1048–9

 

3 Canfield SE, Dahm P. Rating the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using GRADE. World J Urol 2011; 29: 311–7

 

4 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: what is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008; 336: 995–8

 

5 McCulloch P. The IDEAL recommendations and urological innovation. World J Urol 2011; 29: 331–6

 

Video: Posterior Muscolofascial Reconstruction after RP

/by

Posterior musculofascial reconstruction after radical prostatectomy: an updated systematic review and a meta-analysis

Angelica A.C. Grasso*, Francesco A. Mistretta*, Marco Sandri†, Gabriele Cozzi*, Elisa De Lorenzis*, Marco Rosso*, Giancarlo Albo*, Franco Palmisano*, Alex Mottrie‡, Alexander Haese§, Markus Graefen§, Rafael Coelho, Vipul R. Patel¶ and Bernardo Rocco*

 

*Department of Urology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Milan, Italy, †DMS StatLab, Data Methods and Systems Statistical Laboratory, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy, ‡OLV Robotic Surgery Institute, Aalst, Belgium, §Martini Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Clinic Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, and Global Robotics Institute, Florida Hospital-Celebration Health Celebration, University of Central Florida School of Medicine, Orlando, FL, USA

 

Read the full article
To evaluate the influence of posterior musculofascial plate reconstruction (PR) on early return of continence after radical prostatectomy (RP); an updated systematic review of the literature. A systematic review of the literature was performed in June 2015, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and searching Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science databases. We searched the terms posterior reconstruction prostatectomy, double layer anastomosis prostatectomy across the ‘Title’ and ‘Abstract’ fields of the records, with the following limits: humans, gender (male), and language (English). The authors reviewed the records to identify studies comparing cohorts of patients who underwent RP with or without restoration of the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter. A meta-analysis of the risk ratios estimated using data from the selected studies was performed. In all, 21 studies were identified, including three randomised controlled trials. The overall analysis of comparative studies showed that PR improved early continence recovery at 3–7, 30, and 90 days after catheter removal, while the continence rate at 180 days was statistically but not clinically affected. Statistically significantly lower anastomotic leakage rates were described after PR. There were no significant differences for positive surgical margins rates or for complications such as acute urinary retention and bladder neck stricture. The analysis confirms the benefits at 30 days after catheter removal already discussed in the review published in 2012, but also shows a significant advantage in terms of urinary continence recovery in the first 90 days. A multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial is currently being conducted in several institutions around the world to better assess the effectiveness of PR in facilitating an earlier recovery of postoperative urinary continence.

 

Read more articles of the week

 

March #urojc: Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer – Is it a gift that keeps on giving?

/4 Comments/by

The International Urology Journal Club on Twitter is now well into its 4th year.  The subject for the March 2016 discussion was a paper published in the BMJ entitled “Second Malignancies after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis”.

Lead and senior authors, Chris Wallis and Rob Nam were kind enough to  make themselves available to participate in this discussion.  Rob Nam made use of the  #urojc guest twitter account.

UrojcMarch1

The literature was searched using Medline and Embase and the method of review was the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis of Observational studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines for reporting of this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chris Wallis provided an excellent TL:DR summary with the following tweet.

UrojcMarch2

It is well recognized that secondary malignancies following radiation exposure could take many years to become apparent.

UrojcMarch3

The responses were fairly predictable but nevertheless an important point to explore.

UrojcMarch4

Early in the discussion, there was also relevant reminder of the issue of differences in odds ratios and absolute risk.  That said, consideration needs to be given to the ‘big ticket’ nature of secondary malignancy where even a small absolute risk drives a great deal of interest in this subject matter.

UrojcMarch5

UrojcMarch6UrojcMarch7

An interesting finding from the study was that the risk of secondary malignancy was less with brachytherapy compared with external beam radiation.

UrojcMarch8UrojcMarch9

UrojcMarch10

Further to this, is it possible that there could be a difference between HDR and seed brachytherapy?  An interesting thought although not specifically covered in the paper.

UrojcMarch11UrojcMarch12

A more controversial aspect to the discussion was whether the risk of secondary malignancy would justify screening or surveillance. The following exchange was worthy of note.

Whilst there is nothing in the way of documented guidelines or actual evidence to demonstrate a benefit of surveillance, it seems something worthy of consideration for future practice guidelines –  in other words, recommendations one way or the other.

UrojcMarch13

UrojcMarch14

UrojcMarch15UrojcMarch16UrojcMarch17

Rob Nam refers to a third paper on radiation outcomes in the context of previous surgery.  This BJC paper, the Lancet Oncology paper (previous discussed at a #urojc in 2014) and now the current paper could cheekily be called the Nam Trilogy – make note that you heard this term here for the first time.

UrojcMarch18UrojcMarch19

To what extent should we be counseling our patients on the risk of secondary malignancy if they are to undergo radiation for prostate cancer?  Is this just another factor to encourage surgery over radiotherapy?  Will there be no change in practice, particularly in the US where many lucrative radiation oncology services are actually owned by urological surgeon private practice groups?

UrojcMarch20UrojcMarch21UrojcMarch22UrojcMarch23UrojcMarch24

The state of radiation oncology practice is different outside the US and my own personal thoughts on the matter are that the Nam Trilogy of papers will create a series of well cited ‘evidence’ that will further shift the weight of opinion towards surgery over radiotherapy as a primary treatment for localized prostate cancer.

UrojcMarch25

Anybody who followed the March installment of the #urojc would have been impressed by the high level of interaction by the authors Chris Wallis and Rob Nam.  A particular mention should be given to Sabin Motwani who as a radiation oncologist, provided valuable input to the discussion.

Please do join us for the April installment of the #urojc and I encourage you all to email, tweet or DM your suggestions for papers to be discussed.  Please also, feel free to volunteer to write up a monthly summary for publication on the BJUI blogs.  I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Rustom Manecksha who was the winner of the 2016 BJUI SoMe Award for #urojc – a reflection to the quality of his participation and support for this online educational activity.

 

Henry Woo is an Associate Professor of Surgery at the Sydney Adventist Hospital Clinical School of the University of Sydney.  He is the coordinator of the International Urology Journal Club on Twitter.

Article of the Week: Am I normal? A systematic review for penis length and circumference

/1 Comment/by

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Am I normal? A systematic review and construction of nomograms for flaccid and erect penis length and circumference in up to 15,521 men

David Veale*†, Sarah Miles*, Sally Bramley‡, Gordon Muir§ and John Hodsoll*

 

*The Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, ‡King’s College London Medical School, King’s College London, †South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, §King’s College NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

 

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and create nomograms of flaccid and erect penile size measurements.

METHODS

Study key eligibility criteria: measurement of penis size by a health professional using a standard procedure; a minimum of 50 participants per sample. Exclusion criteria: samples with a congenital or acquired penile abnormality, previous surgery, complaint of small penis size or erectile dysfunction. Synthesis methods: calculation of a weighted mean and pooled standard deviation (sd) and simulation of 20 000 observations from the normal distribution to generate nomograms of penis size.

RESULTS

Nomograms for flaccid pendulous [n = 10 704, mean (sd) 9.16 (1.57) cm] and stretched length [n = 14 160, mean (sd) 13.24 (1.89) cm], erect length [n = 692, mean (sd) 13.12 (1.66) cm], flaccid circumference [n = 9407, mean (sd) 9.31 (0.90) cm], and erect circumference [n= 381, mean (sd) 11.66 (1.10) cm] were constructed. Consistent and strongest significant correlation was between flaccid stretched or erect length and height, which ranged from r = 0.2 to 0.6. Limitations: relatively few erect measurements were conducted in a clinical setting and the greatest variability between studies was seen with flaccid stretched length.

CONCLUSIONS

Penis size nomograms may be useful in clinical and therapeutic settings to counsel men and for academic research.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: When normal is not enough

/by

This is a useful reference on penile size, flaccid, stretched and erect [1]. It is interesting to note that the stretch length is quite a useful surrogate for erect length. Measuring stretch lengths obviously has inter-observer bias. This paper describes the standard technique for measuring from the pubic bone along the dorsum of the phallus to the tip, which is usually the external urinary meatus. Some men could well take solace in knowing that their penile length is within the normal range; however, men who complain of having a short penis are usually more complex. In our assessment, it can be useful to measure flaccid stretch length and explain to the patient that his length is within range for his population, but being told ‘you are normal’ might not be enough. The feeling of inadequate length usually has emotional connotations that may not respond to reassurance. In my experience, these men have been told that they have a small penis in late childhood/early puberty, or else have witnessed an adult penis before their own growth. This misconception then goes uncorrected for several years until they finally present. Locker room comparison does not help, as there is a parallax error in viewing one’s own penis from above as compared with the full frontal view of one’s peers.

At the stage of presentation, a simple reassurance is unlikely to reverse years of conditioning. The patient could experience a dangerous sense of frustration should he feel dismissed as normal. So-called ‘penile lengthening’ by partial division of the suspensory ligaments only has a 27% satisfaction rate among patients with penile dysmorphobic disorder [2]. Provided a medical/anatomical cause is not to be treated, I recommend psychosexual assessment and counselling.

Read the full article
Paul K. Hegarty
Mater Misericordiae Univers ity Hospital & Mater Private, Cork & Dublin, Ireland

 

References
1 Veale D, Miles S, Bramley S, Muir G, Hodsoll J. Am I normal? A systematic review and construction of nomograms for flaccid and erect penis length and circumference in up to 15,521 men. BJU Int 2014. [Epub ahead of print].

 

2. LiCY, Kayes O, Kell PD, Christopher N, Minhas S, Ralph DJ. Penile suspensory ligament division for penile augmentation: indications and results. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 729–33

 

© 2024 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.