Search

Background: Evidence-practice gaps exist in urology. We previously surveyed European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for strong recommendations underpinned by high-certainty evidence that impact patient experience for which practice variations were suspected. The recommendation "Do not offer neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) before surgery for patients with prostate cancer" was prioritised for further investigation. ADT before surgery is neither clinically effective nor cost effective and has serious side effects. The first step in improving implementation problems is to understand their extent. A clear picture of practice regarding ADT before surgery across Europe is not available., Objective: To assess current ADT use before prostate cancer surgery in Europe., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was an observational cross-sectional study. We retrospectively audited recent ADT practices in a multicentre international setting. We used nonprobability purposive sampling, aiming for breadth in terms of low- versus high-volume, academic, versus community and public versus private centres., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Our primary outcome was adherence to the ADT recommendation. Descriptive statistics and a multilevel model were used to investigate differences between countries across different factors (volume, centre type, and funding type). Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with low, intermediate, and high risk, and for those with locally advanced prostate cancer. We also collected reasons for nonadherence., Results and Limitations: We included 6598 patients with prostate cancer from 187 hospitals in 31 countries from January 1, 2017 to May 1, 2020. Overall, nonadherence was 2%, (range 0-32%). Most of the variability was found in the high-risk subgroup, for which nonadherence was 4% (range 0-43%). Reasons for nonadherence included attempts to improve oncological outcomes or preoperative tumour parameters; attempts to control the cancer because of long waiting lists; and patient preference (changing one's mind from radiotherapy to surgery after neoadjuvant ADT had commenced or feeling that the side effects were intolerable). Although we purposively sampled for variety within countries (public/private, academic/community, high/low-volume), a selection bias toward centres with awareness of guidelines is possible, so adherence rates may be overestimated., Conclusions: EAU guidelines recommend against ADT use before prostate cancer surgery, yet some guideline-discordant ADT use remains at the cost of patient experience and an additional payer and provider burden. Strategies towards discontinuation of inappropriate preoperative ADT use should be pursued., Patient Summary: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is sometimes used in men with prostate cancer who will not benefit from it. ADT causes side effects such as weight gain and emotional changes and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and osteoporosis. Guidelines strongly recommend that men opting for surgery should not receive ADT, but it is unclear how well the guidance is followed. We asked urologists across Europe how patients in their institutions were treated over the past few years. Most do not use ADT before surgery, but this still happens in some places. More research is needed to help doctors to stop using ADT in patients who will not benefit from it., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Urethral stricture management guidelines are an important tool for guiding evidence-based clinical practice., Objective: To present a summary of the 2021 European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on diagnosis, classification, perioperative management, and follow-up of male urethral stricture disease., Evidence Acquisition: The panel performed a literature review on the topics covering a time frame between 2008 and 2018, and using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria for the literature. Key papers beyond this time period could be included if panel consensus was reached. A strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a review of the available literature after panel discussion., Evidence Synthesis: Routine diagnostic evaluation encompasses history, patient-reported outcome measures, examination, uroflowmetry, postvoid residual measurement, endoscopy, and urethrography. Ancillary techniques that provide a three-dimensional assessment and may demonstrate associated abnormalities include sonourethrography and magnetic resonance urethrogram, although these are not utilised routinely. The classification of strictures should include stricture location and calibre. Urethral rest after urethral manipulations is advised prior to offering urethroplasty. An assessment for urinary extravasation after urethroplasty is beneficial before catheter removal. The optimal time of catheterisation after urethrotomy is <72 h, but is unclear following urethroplasty and depends on various factors. Patients undergoing urethroplasty should be followed up for at least 1 yr. Objective and subjective outcomes should be assessed after urethral surgeries, including patient satisfaction and sexual function., Conclusions: Accurate diagnosis and categorisation is important in determining management. Adequate perioperative care and follow-up is essential for achieving successful outcomes. The EAU guidelines provide relevant evidence-based recommendations to optimise patient work-up and follow-up., Patient Summary: Urethral strictures have to be assessed adequately before planning treatment. Before surgery, urethral rest and infection prevention are advised. After urethral surgery, x-ray dye tests are advised before removing catheters to ensure that healing has occurred. Routine follow-up is required, including patient-reported outcomes. These guidelines aim to guide doctors in the diagnosis, care, and follow-up of patients with urethral stricture., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To present a summary of the 2021 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on management of male urethral stricture disease., Evidence Acquisition: The panel performed a literature review on these topics covering a time frame between 2008 and 2018, and used predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria for the literature to be selected. Key papers beyond this time period could be included as per panel consensus. A strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a review of the available literature and after panel discussion., Evidence Synthesis: Management of male urethral strictures has extensively been described in literature. Nevertheless, few well-designed studies providing high level of evidence are available. In well-resourced countries, iatrogenic injury to the urethra is one of the most common causes of strictures. Asymptomatic strictures do not always need active treatment. Endoluminal treatments can be used for short, nonobliterative strictures at the bulbar and posterior urethra as first-line treatment. Repetitive endoluminal treatments are not curative. Urethroplasty encompasses a multitude of techniques, and adaptation of the technique to the local conditions of the stricture is crucial to obtain durable patency rates., Conclusions: Management of male urethral strictures is complex, and a multitude of techniques are available. Selection of the appropriate technique is crucial, and these guidelines provide relevant recommendations., Patient Summary: Injury to the urethra by medical interventions is one of the most common reasons of male urethral stricture disease in well-resourced countries. Although different techniques are available to manage urethral strictures, not every technique is appropriate for every type of stricture. These guidelines, developed based on an extensive literature review, aim to guide physicians in the selection of the appropriate technique(s) to treat a specific type of urethral stricture., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Adherence to national and international clinical practice guidelines is suboptimal throughout Europe. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office project "IMAGINE" (IMpact Assessment of Guidelines Implementation and Education) has been developed to measure baseline adherence to urological guideline recommendations across Europe and to identify issues that drive nonadherence., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unlike anything seen before by modern science-based medicine. Health systems across the world are struggling to manage it. Added to this struggle are the effects of social confinement and isolation. This brings into question whether the latest guidelines are relevant in this crisis. We aim to support urologists in this difficult situation by providing tools that can facilitate decision making, and to minimise the impact and risks for both patients and health professionals delivering urological care, whenever possible. We hope that the revised recommendations will assist urologist surgeons across the globe to guide the management of urological conditions during the current COVID-19 pandemic., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Context: The most recent European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urological trauma were published in 2014., Objective: To present a summary of the 2014 version of the EAU guidelines on upper urinary tract injuries with the emphasis upon diagnosis and treatment., Evidence Acquisition: The EAU trauma guidelines panel reviewed literature by a Medline search on upper urinary tract injuries; publication dates up to December 2013 were accepted. The focus was on newer publications and reviews, although older key references could be included., Evidence Synthesis: A full version of the guidelines is available in print and online. Blunt trauma is the main cause of renal injuries. The preferred diagnostic modality of renal trauma is computed tomography (CT) scan. Conservative management is the best approach in stable patients. Angiography and selective embolisation are the first-line treatments. Surgical exploration is primarily for the control of haemorrhage (which may necessitate nephrectomy) and renal salvage. Urinary extravasation is managed with endourologic or percutaneous techniques. Complications may require additional imaging or interventions. Follow-up is focused on renal function and blood pressure. Penetrating trauma is the main cause of noniatrogenic ureteral injuries. The diagnosis is often made by CT scanning or at laparotomy, and the mainstay of treatment is open repair. The type of repair depends upon the severity and location of the injury., Conclusions: Renal injuries are best managed conservatively or with minimally invasive techniques. Preservation of renal units is feasible in most cases. This review, performed by the EAU trauma guidelines panel, summarises the current management of upper urinary tract injuries., Patient Summary: Patients with trauma benefit from being accurately diagnosed and treated appropriately, according to the nature and severity of their injury., (Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: The most recent European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urologic trauma were published in 2014., Objective: To present a summary of the 2014 version of the EAU guidelines on urologic trauma of the lower urinary tract with an emphasis on diagnosis and treatment., Evidence Acquisition: The EAU Trauma Panel reviewed the English-language literature via a Medline search for lower urinary tract injury (LUTI) up to November 2013. The focus was on newer publications and reviews, although older key references could be included., Evidence Synthesis: A full version of the guidelines is available in print (EAU Guidelines 2014 edition, ISBN/EAN 978-90-79754-65-6) and online (www.uroweb.org). Blunt trauma is the main cause of LUTI. The preferred diagnostic modality for bladder and urethral injury is cystography and urethrography, respectively. In the treatment of bladder injuries, it is important to distinguish between extra- and intraperitoneal ruptures. Treatment of male anterior urethral injuries depends on the cause (blunt vs penetrating vs penile-fracture-related injury). Blunt posterior urethral injuries can be corrected by immediate/early endoscopic realignment. If this is not possible, such injuries are managed by suprapubic urinary diversion and deferred (>3 mo) urethroplasty. Treatment of female urethral injuries depends on the location of the injury and is usually surgical., Conclusions: Correct treatment of LUTIs is important to minimise long-term urinary symptoms and sexual dysfunction. This review performed by the EAU trauma panel summarises the current management of LUTIs., Patient Summary: Patients with trauma to the lower urinary tract benefit from accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment according to the nature and severity of their injury., (Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Localized prostate cancer is increasingly treated by robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). We evaluated the introduction of RARP following a training program at a high-volume robotic center., Materials and Methods: Before starting RARP, a young urologist followed a 6-month training program. The outcome of his first 50 RARPs was compared with the last 50 open radical prostatectomies (ORPs) performed by an experienced urologist at the same institution. Tumor characteristics were similar in both groups. Median follow-up was 12 (RARP) and 31 (ORP) months (p < 0.001)., Results: RARP was associated with more nerve sparing (82 vs. ORP 46%, p < 0.001), longer operation time [median 205 (range 120-310) vs. ORP 180 (85-280) min, p = 0.001], lower decline of postoperative hemoglobin [RARP -2.1 (0.1-4.5) vs. ORP -4.0 (1.0-7.0) g/dl, p < 0.001] and shorter catheter stay [6 (5-47) vs. ORP 14 (9-43) days, p < 0.001]. Complication rates were similar. Overall and pT2-positive surgical margin rate was 8 vs. 24% (p = 0.054) and 0 vs. 11.8% (p = 0.114) for RARP vs. ORP, respectively. One-year urinary continence rate was 76.7 (RARP) and 75.8% (ORP, p = 0.833)., Conclusions: RARP was safely introduced after a training program in a high-volume robotic center, both surgically, oncologically and functionally., (© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objectives To prospectively assess contemporary complication rates of minimally-invasive staging pelvic lymph node dissection before curative radiotherapy for prostate cancer using a standardized classification. Methods A total of 100 prostate cancer patients underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection (95% extended). Surgical outcomes were compared with those of 43 patients undergoing open pelvic lymph node dissection (33% extended). Complications were recorded prospectively during hospitalization and follow-up visits, and graded using Clavien- Dindo classification. Lymphocele size was measured on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. Results Of the complications recorded, 10% were grade 1, 3% were grade 2 and 6% were grade 3. No grade 4-5 complications occurred. Compared with open pelvic lymph node dissection, minimally-invasive pelvic lymph node dissection was associated with less blood loss ( P = 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (median 3 vs 6 days; P < 0.001), but longer operation time (130 vs 98 min; P < 0.001). The complication rate was similar in both groups. For the entire cohort, overall and symptomatic lymphoceles were seen in 91 (64%) and 18 patients (13%), respectively. On multivariate logistic regression, minimally-invasive surgery was the only independent predictor for lymphocele development (odds ratio 3.99; P = 0.015). Conclusions Minimally-invasive extended pelvic lymph node dissection before curative radiotherapy is associated with low morbidity. Asymptomatic lymphocele development rate is higher compared with open pelvic lymph node dissection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Methods Results Conclusion To review the available literature on variant genital gender‐affirming surgery (GGAS), including the reasons for performing it, the surgeries themselves and their outcomes.A systematic review on the performance of variant GGAS was conducted (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO] identifier: CRD42022306684) researching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases from inception up to 31 December 2023. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and risk of bias was assessed for each study using the five‐criteria quality assessment checklist.In total 23 case series were included, of which 17 on masculinising and six on feminising surgeries. Patients mainly choose these surgical procedures out of personal desire to avoid risk of complication or because they do not have dysphoria about certain parts of their genitalia. Complications in masculinising surgeries primarily arose from the extended urethra, which could be mitigated through primary perineal urethrostomy. Both phalloplasty and metoidioplasty carried a higher risk of urethral complications when the vagina was preserved. In feminising surgeries, risk of visceral damage and requirement for lifelong self‐dilation could be avoided when vulvoplasty was performed without vaginal canal creation. All studies had a high risk of bias.This review highlights the importance of variant GGAS and acknowledges the preferences of transgender and gender‐diverse individuals. Patients should be informed about the risks and benefits of each step in these procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conflicts of interest (COIs) can potentially introduce a risk of bias into the assessment of evidence and the formulation of recommendations for guidelines. It is essential that a systematic process for the disclosure and management of COIs is adopted to minimise potential bias in the guideline development process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]