Search

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteral stones in pediatric patients, Cochrane, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the reference list of retrieved studies were searched up to September 2022 to identify RCTs on the efficacy of MET. The protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022339093). Articles were reviewed, data were extracted by two reviewers, and the differences were resolved by the third reviewer. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2. The outcomes, including the stone expulsion rate (SER), stone expulsion time (SET), episode of pain, analgesic consumption, and adverse effects, were evaluated. Six RCTs enrolling 415 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The duration of MET ranged from 19 to 28 days. The investigated medications included tamsulosin, silodosin, and doxazosin. The stone-free rate after 4 weeks in the MET group was 1.42 times that of the control group (RR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.26–1.61, p < 0.001). The stone expulsion time also decreased by an average of 5.18 days (95% CI: −8.46/−1.89, p = 0.002). Adverse effects were more commonly observed in the MET group (RR: 2.18; 95% CI: 1.28–3.69, p = 0.004). The subgroup analysis evaluating the influence of the type of medication, the stone size, and the age of patients failed to reveal any impact of the aforementioned factors on the stone expulsion rate or stone expulsion time. Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy among pediatric patients are efficient and safe. They increase the stone expulsion rate and decrease the stone expulsion time; however, this included a higher rate of adverse effects, which include headache, dizziness, or nasal congestion.

Introduction & Objectives: Kidney-sparing surgery (KSS) seems inferior to radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) in recurrence-free survival (RFS). However, there is limited data regarding the potential influence of the location of the upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). The current study aims to provide further evidence by the largest UTUC registry.

Purpose: Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and Methods: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological As- sociation [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/ uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the re- sponses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identi- fied where no guidelines are available. Conclusions: This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male in- fertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical prac- tice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.

Coated urethral catheters were introduced in clinical practice to reduce the risk of catheter-acquired urinary tract infection (CAUTI). We aimed to systematically review the incidence of CAUTI and adverse effects in randomized clinical trials of patients requiring indwelling bladder catheterization by comparing coated vs. non-coated catheters. This review was performed according to the 2020 PRISMA framework. The incidence of CAUTI and catheter-related adverse events was evaluated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with a random-effects model and reported as the risk ratio (RR), 95% CI, and p-values. Significance was set at p < 0.05 and a 95% CI. Twelve studies including 36,783 patients were included for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in the CAUTI rate between coated and non-coated catheters (RR 0.87 95% CI 0.75-1.00, p = 0.06). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the risk of CAUTI was significantly lower in the coated group compared with the non-coated group among patients requiring long-term catheterization (>14 days) (RR 0.82 95% CI 0.68-0.99, p = 0.04). There was no difference between the two groups in the incidence of the need for catheter exchange or the incidence of lower urinary tract symptoms after catheter removal. The benefit of coated catheters in reducing CAUTI risk among patients requiring long-term catheterization should be balanced against the increased direct costs to health care systems when compared to non-coated catheters.

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-tau-10.1177_17562872221078773 for Evaluation of early scoring predictors for expedited care in patients with emphysematous pyelonephritis by Arun Chawla, Sunil Pillai Bhaskara, Ravi Taori, Jean J.M.C.H de la Rosette, Pilar Laguna, Akhilesh Pandey, Sitaram Mummalaneni, Padmaraj Hegde, Shwetapriya Rao and Prakashini K in Therapeutic Advances in Urology

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tau-10.1177_17562872221078773 for Evaluation of early scoring predictors for expedited care in patients with emphysematous pyelonephritis by Arun Chawla, Sunil Pillai Bhaskara, Ravi Taori, Jean J.M.C.H de la Rosette, Pilar Laguna, Akhilesh Pandey, Sitaram Mummalaneni, Padmaraj Hegde, Shwetapriya Rao and Prakashini K in Therapeutic Advances in Urology

We aimed to perform a systematic review of randomized trials to summarize the evidence on the safety and stone-free rate after Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) (ureteral stent/catheter, no nephrostomy) compared to Standard PCNL (nephrostomy, with/without ureteral stent/catheter) to evaluate if the tubeless approach is better. The inverse variance of the mean difference with a random effect, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), and p values was used for continuous variables. Categorical variables were assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with the random effect model, and reported as Risk Ratio (RR), 95% CI, and p values. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and a 95% CI. 26 studies were included. Mean operative time was significantly shorter in the Tubeless group (MD-5.18 min, 95% CI - 6.56, - 3.80, p < 0.00001). Mean postoperative length of stay was also significantly shorter in the Tubeless group (MD-1.10 day, 95% CI - 1.48, - 0.71, p < 0.00001). Incidence of blood transfusion, angioembolization for bleeding control, pain score at the first postoperative day, the number of patients requiring postoperative pain medication, fever, urinary infections, sepsis, perirenal fluid collection, pleural breach, hospital readmission, and SFR did not differ between the two groups. Incidence of postoperative urinary fistula was significantly lower in the Tubeless group (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07, 0.47, p = 0.0005). This systematic review shows that tubeless PCNL can be safely performed and the standout benefits are shorter operative time and hospital stay, and a lower rate of postoperative urinary fistula. Universita Politecnica delle Marche within the CRUI-CARE Agreement

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tau-10.1177_17562872221078773 for Evaluation of early scoring predictors for expedited care in patients with emphysematous pyelonephritis by Arun Chawla, Sunil Pillai Bhaskara, Ravi Taori, Jean J.M.C.H de la Rosette, Pilar Laguna, Akhilesh Pandey, Sitaram Mummalaneni, Padmaraj Hegde, Shwetapriya Rao and Prakashini K in Therapeutic Advances in Urology

Sperm vitality testing is a basic semen examination that has been described in the World Health Organization (WHO) Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen from its primary edition, 40 years ago. Several methods can be used to test sperm vitality, such as the eosin-nigrosin (E-N) stain or the hypoosmotic swelling (HOS) test. In the 6th (2021) edition of the WHO Laboratory Manual, sperm vitality assessment is mainly recommended if the total motility is less than 40%. Hence, a motile spermatozoon is considered alive, however, in certain conditions an immotile spermatozoon can also be alive. Therefore, the differentiation between asthenozoospermia (pathological decrease in sperm motility) and necrozoospermia (pathological decrease in sperm vitality) is important in directing further investigation and management of infertile patients. The causes leading to necrozoospermia are diverse and can either be local or general, testicular or extra -testicular. The andrological management of necrozoospermia depends on its etiology. However, there is no standardized treatment available presently and practice varies among clinicians. In this study, we report the results of a global survey to understand current practices regarding the physician order of sperm vitality tests as well as the management practices for necrozoospermia. Laboratory and clinical scenarios are presented to guide the reader in the management of necrozoospermia with the overall objective of establishing a benchmark ranging from the diagnosis of necrozoospermia by sperm vitality testing to its clinical management. American Center for Reproductive Medicine

WOS: 000452678200004 PubMed ID: 30138121 Purpose of review Most of focal therapies has addressed index lesion as the targeted tumour focus to treat localized prostate cancer (PCa), a multifocal disease. The interaction between tumour foci and host cells creates a tumour microenvironment (TME) which affects tumour growth, cellular proliferation, and PCa progression. This review aims to better understand the biology of cancer foci and their interaction with the prostatic microenvironment after focal therapy. Recent findings Index lesions are representative of PCa grade in low-risk patients, but the other foci of tumour, the satellite lesions, gain relevance in higher risk patients. Multiparametric MRI, guided biopsies and new biomarkers in combination are important to address PCa multifocality and to adequately select patients to focal therapy. Stromal, immune, and tumoural components are integrated in tumourigenesis and modified after the inflammation induced by focal therapy. Summary TME and inflammation play an important role in PCa progression, but further researches are necessary to understand how once protective components of prostate microenvironment become protumour elements and how inflammation induced by focal therapy can affect them. Learning how to modulate TME is an exploratory molecular field that can lead us to better manage PCa in both prevention and treatment scenarios.

WOS: 000455051200006 PubMed ID: 30479377 Despite improvements in early detection and advances in treatment, patients with prostate cancer continue to die from their disease. Minimal residual disease after primary definitive treatment can lead to relapse and distant metastases, and increasing evidence suggests that circulating tumour cells (CTCs) and bone marrow-derived disseminated tumour cells (BM-DTCs) can offer clinically relevant biological insights into prostate cancer dissemination and metastasis. Using epithelial markers to accurately detect CTCs and BM-DTCs is associated with difficulties, and prostate-specific markers are needed for the detection of these cells using rare cell assays. Putative prostate-specific markers have been identified, and an optimized strategy for staining rare cancer cells from liquid biopsies using these markers is required. The ideal prostate-specific marker will be expressed on every CTC or BM-DTC throughout disease progression (giving high sensitivity) and will not be expressed on non-prostate-cancer cells in the sample (giving high specificity). Some markers might not be specific enough to the prostate to be used as individual markers of prostate cancer cells, whereas others could be truly prostate-specific and would make ideal markers for use in rare cell assays. The goal of future studies is to use sensitive and specific prostate markers to consistently and reliably identify rare cancer cells. NCI [F32CA206394, U54CA143803, CA163124, CA093900, CA143055]; Prostate Cancer Foundation; Patrick C. Walsh Fund; Cure for Cancer Foundation This work is supported by NCI grants U54CA143803, CA163124, CA093900, and CA143055 as well as the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the Patrick C. Walsh Fund and a gift from the Stutt family. E.E.v.d.T. is supported by the Cure for Cancer Foundation. K.C.V. is supported by NCI grant F32CA206394.

Objectives: To review the current literature on the presence of COVID-19 virus in the urine of infected patients and to explore the clinical features that can predict the presence of COVID-19 in urine.Materials and Methods: A systematic review of published literature between 30th December 2019 and 21st June 2020 was conducted on Pubmed, Google Scholar, Ovid, Scopus, and ISI web of science. Studies investigating urinary viral shedding of COVID-19 in infected patients were included. Two reviewers selected relative studies and performed quality assessment of individual studies. Meta-analysis was performed on the pooled case reports and cohort with a sample size of >= 9.Results: Thirty-nine studies were finally included in the systematic review; 12 case reports, 26 case series, and one cohort study. Urinary samples from 533 patients were investigated. Fourteen studies reported the presence of COVID-19 in the urinary samples from 24 patients. The crude overall rate of COVID-19 detection in urinary samples was 4.5%. Considering case series and cohorts with a sample size of >= 9, the estimated viral shedding frequency was 1.18 % (CI 95%: 0.14 - 2.87) in the meta-analysis. Urinary viral load in most reports were lower than rectal or oropharyngeal samples. In adult patients, urinary shedding of COVID-19 was commonly detected in patients with moderate to severe disease (16 adult patients with moderate or severe disease versus two adult patients with mild disease). In children, urinary viral shedding of COVID-19 was reported in 4 children who all suffered from mild disease. Urinary viral shedding of COVID-19 was detected from day 1 to day 52 after disease onset. The pathogenicity of virus isolated from urine has been demonstrated in cell culture media in one study while another study failed to reveal replication of isolated viral RNA in cell cultures. Urinary symptoms were not attributed to urinary viral shedding.Conclusion: While COVID-19 is rarely detected in urine of infected individuals, infection transmission through urine still remains possible. In adult patients, infected urine is more likely in the presence of moderate or severe disease. Therefore, caution should be exerted when dealing with COVID-19 infected patients during medical interventions like endoscopy and urethral catheterization especially in symptomatic adult patients while in children caution should be exerted regardless of symptoms.

Our aim is to present the current position of mobile health (mHealth) and the delivery of healthcare services via mobile communication devices in urology. We conducted a literature review of urology mHealth papers on PubMed. Results indicate that mHealth is becoming ubiquitous in contemporary healthcare systems. Although its potential has been shown, urology lags behind other areas, representing just 0.1% of the 300,000 available medical apps in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Furthermore, there is a lack of expert healthcare professional involvement in app development. To avoid harm, it is critical that the scientific accuracy, patient privacy, and user safety of urology mHealth applications are assured. This is because there is no globally enforced medical app regulation, compulsory scientific guidelines, nor mandatory industry standards. Urologists, either individually or via scientific organizations, should have a pivotal position in the design, development, review, certification, and recommendation of apps. mHealth holds great potential in urology, as it can aid multiple stakeholders: citizens, patients, healthcare professionals, health organizations, and public authorities (e.g., Ministry of Health). Even though it is mostly used to improve existing medical activities at present, the future will include revolutionary and ground-breaking technology solutions. This innovative field should be seen by urologists as an opportunity to provide greater care to our patients and better tools and knowledge to our peers.

Contemporary minimally invasive surgical (MIS) treatment options of patients with male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) in men with prostate glands >80 mL include Holmium Laser Enucleation Prostate (HoLEP), Thulium laser VapoEnucleation Prostate (ThuVEP), and Laparoscopic (LSP) or Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy (RASP). Implementing new laser technologies is costly, and the steep learning curve of these laser techniques limit their wide range use. This promoted the use of LSP and RASP in centers with readily established laparoscopy or robotic surgery programs. The aim of this study is to review case and comparative series of RASP. We systematically reviewed published data from 2008 to 2020 on RASP and have identified 26 non-comparative and 9 comparative case series. RASP has longer operation time but less time spent in hospital and less blood loss. The outcomes of improvements in symptom score, post-voiding residual urine (PVR), postoperative PSA decline, complications, and cost are similar when compared to open and laser enucleation techniques. These outcomes position RASP as a viable MIS treatment option for patients with male LUTS needing surgical treatment for enlarged prostates. Nevertheless, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with multicenter and large sample size are needed to confirm the findings of this systematic review.