Objectives: Standard multi-port laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) is considered the gold standard for benign adrenal tumors. Single-site LA has been proposed as a feasible and safe alternative because of lower invasiveness, improved cosmetics, less pain and shorter hospital stay. The objective was to evaluate and compare results of single-site transumbilical laparoendoscopic adrenalectomy with standard LA for adrenal tumors. Materials and methods: One hundred consecutive adrenalectomies from 93 patients, performed between March 2009 and June 2017, were laparoscopically excised: 59 by standard multi-port LA (group 1) and 41 by transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy (group 2). Data gathered included demographics, comorbidities, preoperative imaging, tumor characteristics, perioperative data, surgical complications, pathology and follow-up. IBM SPSS Statistics 23 software was used and p value < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: Patients of group 2 were younger (48.7 ± 13.9 versus 59.7 ± 15.1 years; p < 0.001) and had fewer comorbidities (p < 0.05). Mean tumor diameter in group 2 was lower than those of group 1 (27.52 ± 14.3 versus 47.9 ± 30.6 mm; p < 0.001). Tumor laterality did not influence the choice of technique nor the surgical morbidity. All procedures were successfully completed, although one standard LA needed conversion to open surgery. Mean operative time, hemorrhagic losses, postoperative opioid analgesic requirement and hospital stay were not statistically different between groups. Most patients in group 2 (31 patients, 85.4%) did not require drainage, compared to 14 (25.4%) patients of group 1 (p < 0.001). Patients who underwent single-site LA resumed normal diet earlier (1.0 ± 0.2 versus 1.6 ± 0.7 days; p < 0.001). There were no reoperations and no perioperative mortality. Overall mean follow-up time was 94.9 ± 3.1 months, not statiscally different between groups (p = 0.7). Conclusions: Our results revealed that transumbilical approach for laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy for adrenal tumors is a feasible and safe alternative to standard laparoscopic adrenalectomy.

Diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer metabolism: Is there a relationship?

Objective: The last edition of the AJCC staging system eliminated the pT2 subclassification of prostate cancer (PCa). Our objective was to evaluate the association of pT2 subclassification with the oncological results of patients with PCa who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). Material and methods: We evaluated 367 patients who underwent RP between 2009 and 2016, with pT2 disease in the final pathological evaluation. We assessed differences in rates of biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastasis and mortality between T2 substages (pT2a/b vs pT2c). Results: Fifty-three (14.4%) patients presented pT2a/b disease and 314 (85.6%) pT2c disease. The mean follow-up time was 4.9 ± 2.6 years. Grade group scores (p = 0.1) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) (p = 0.2) did not differed between pT2 substages. The rate of BCR in pT2a/b and pT2c patients was 11.3% and 18.2%, respectively (p = 0.2). Five (9.4%) patients with pT2a/b and 45 (14.3%) with pT2c substage underwent salvage radiotherapy (p = 0.3). The rate of positive surgical margins did not differ between groups (p = 0.2). Seven (2.2%) patients with pT2c had lymph nodes or distant metastases. The overall survival was 92.5% and 93.6% in pT2a/b and pT2c, respectively (p = 0.2). Conclusion: Our results are in accordance with the changes introduced in the 8th edition of the AJCC staging system in which the pT2 subclassification was eliminated.

Introduction: Hospitals are dealing with patients who may have clinical discharge but cannot return to their home due to non-medical issues. Material and Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of all the cases referred to the Integrated Care Network during the year 2016. Evaluation of waiting times, typology, reason for referral and clinical parameters. IBM SPSS 24.0 software was used for all statistical analyses. Results: In the evaluated period, 2294 patients were discharged from our department. Of these, 55 were referred to Integrated Care Network. The mean length of hospitalization of the patients referred to the network was 20.6 ± 11.4 days, and the mean overall length of hospital stay in the period analyzed was 4.8 ± 0.9 days. The mean time between hospitalization and referral for continuing care was 10.7 ± 7.2 days. The time between referral and discharge of the hospital was 10.0 ± 8.7 days. Thirty-nine (70.9%) patients were hospitalized for oncological diseases. The most common referral was to Palliative Care units (n = 16; 29.1%). Patients referred to Palliative Care units showed the largest waiting times between the referral for the network and the hospital discharge, 12.2 ± 10.51 days. We observed 289 hospitalization days with patients who had no need of specialized urological care. Discussion: In order to reduce time between referral to the network and hospital discharge, there is a need for enhanced cooperation and coordination among doctors, nurses and social workers. Conclusion: Early identification by physicians and nurses of patients who will require care after discharge will provide a better response from social workers and increased hospital performance.