Percutaneous Nephrostomy versus Ureteral Stent for Severe Urinary Tract Infection with Obstructive Urolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background and Objectives: The European Association of Urology guidelines on urolithiasis highlight the limited evidence supporting the superiority of percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) over retrograde ureteral stent placement for the primary treatment of infected hydronephrosis secondary to urolithiasis. We, therefore, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effects of PCN and retrograde ureteral stent in patients with severe urinary tract infections secondary to obstructive urolithiasis. Materials and Methods: Meta-analyses were performed to compare four outcomes: time for the temperature to return to normal; time for the white blood cell (WBC) count to return to normal; hospital length of stay; and procedure success rate. After a full-text review, eight studies were identified as relevant and included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. Results: No significant difference was detected between PCN and retrograde ureteral stenting for the time for the temperature to return to normal (p = 0.13; mean difference [MD] = -0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.69, 0.21; I2 = 96%) or the time for the WBC count to return to normal (p = 0.24; MD = 0.46; 95% CI = -0.30, 1.21; I2 = 85%). There was also no significant difference between methods for hospital length of stay (p = 0.78; MD = 0.45; 95% CI = -2.78, 3.68; I2 = 96%) or procedure success rate (p = 0.76; odds ratio = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.34, 2.20; I2 = 47%). Conclusions: The clinical outcomes related to efficacy did not differ between PCN and retrograde ureteral stenting for severe urinary tract infection with obstructive urolithiasis. Thus, the choice between procedures depends mainly on the urologist's or patient's preferences.

A Systematic Review on Comparative Analyses between Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Shock-Wave Lithotripsy for Ureter Stone According to Stone Size.

Background and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the treatment outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) according to the ureteral stone size. Materials and Methods: In this systematic review, relevant articles that compared SWL and URSL for treatment of ureteral stones were identified. Articles were selected from four English databases including Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of controlled Trials (Central), and Google Scholar. A quality assessment was carried out by our researchers independently using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A total of 1325 studies were identified, but after removing duplicates, there remained 733 studies. Of these studies, 439 were excluded, 294 were screened, and 18 met the study eligibility criteria. Results: In randomized control trial (RCT) studies, URSL showed significantly higher SFR than SWL (p < 0.01, OR= 0.40, 95% CI 0.30-0.55, I² = 29%). The same results were shown in sub-group analysis according to the size of the stone (<1 cm: p < 0.01, OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25-0.63; >1 cm: p < 0.01, OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.74, I² = 55%; not specified: p < 0.01, OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.72, I² = 70%). In the non-RCT studies, the effectiveness of the URSL was significantly superior to that of SWL (p < 0.01, OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52, I² = 83%). Retreatment rate was significantly lower in URSL than in SWL regardless of stone size (p < 0.01, OR = 10.22, 95% CI 6.76-15.43, I² = 54%). Conclusions: Meta-analysis results show that SFR was higher than SWL in URSL and that URSL was superior to SWL in retreatment rate. However, more randomized trials are required to identify definitive conclusions.

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background and objectives: To perform a updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stones (RS). Materials and Methods: A total of 37 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis about effectiveness to treat RS. Endpoints were stone-free rates (SFR), incidence of auxiliary procedure, retreatment, and complications. We also conducted a sub-analysis of ≥2 cm stones. Results: First, PCNL had the highest SFR than others regardless of stone sizes and RIRS showed a higher SFR than ESWL in <2 cm stones. Second, auxiliary procedures were higher in ESWL than others, and it did not differ between PCNL and RIRS. Finally, in <2 cm stones, the retreatment rate of ESWL was higher than others. RIRS required significantly more retreatment procedures than PCNL in ≥2 cm stones. Complication was higher in PCNL than others, but there was no statistically significant difference in complications between RIRS and PCNL in ≥2 cm stones. For ≥2 cm stones, PCNL had the highest SFR, and auxiliary procedures and retreatment rates were significantly lower than others. Conclusions: We suggest that PCNL is a safe and effective treatment, especially for large RS.

Korean Society of Endourology and Robotics (KSER) recommendation on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of urolithiasis.

This article provides evidence-based recommendations and expert opinions to aid urologists in making optimal decisions regarding managing urolithiasis in various clinical scenarios. The most frequently asked questions by urologists in their clinical practice have been collected and answered in the form of FAQs; based on the latest evidence and expert opinions. The natural history of urolithiasis is divided into active treatment and silent phases, with the active treatment stage divided into typical and special situations and peri-treatment management. The authors address 28 key questions, offering practical guidance for the proper diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of urolithiasis in clinical practice. This article is expected to be served as a valuable resource for urologists.

Outcomes of Retzius-sparing versus conventional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A KSER update series systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy(RARP) is widely used to surgically treat of localized prostate cancer. Among RARP, retzius-sparing techniques(RS-RARP) are implemented through douglas pouch, not the existing conventional approach(C-RARP). We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including recent published papers. MATERIALS & METHODS: Systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guideline. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched up to August 2021. We conducted meta-analysis as follows; Participants, patients with biopsy-proven PCa; Interventions, Patients underwent C-RARP or RS-RALP; Outcomes, comparison of continence recovery rate, positive surgical margins(PSM), complication, operation time and estimated blood loss(EBL) included for analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with a total of 2917 patients were included for meta-analysis. Among them, three were randomized controlled trials (RCT) studies and the rest were non-RCT studies. Incontinence was analyzed with zero pad and safety pad, respectively. There showed a statistically significant advantage for RS-RARP in terms of continence recovery at 1 month(0 pad; OR 0.28, (0.16-0.47), safety-pad; OR 0.12 (0.07-0.22), p<0.001), as well as at 3 months(0 pad; OR 0.31 (0.18-0.53), safety-pad; OR 0.23 (0.14-0.40) p<0.001), 6 months(0 pad; OR 0.29 (0.17-0.51), safety-pad; OR 0.13 (0.06-0.27), p<0.001). And after 12 months, RS-RARP showed better results only in the safety-pad(0 pad; OR 0.64 (0.35-1.18), p = 0.15, safety-pad; OR 0.12 (0.04-0.36), p<0.001). In PSM, there was no statistical difference between two group at overall stage, but RS-RARP was observed to be higher than C-RARP in pT3 subgroup analysis(OR 0.74 (0.55-0.99), p = 0.047) (Fig 1). Whereas, there was no significant difference between the two groups in complication, operation time, and EBL. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed that RS-RARP is superior about early continence recovery than C-RARP. However, RS-RARP showed relatively high PSM in locally advanced PCa of pT3 or above. Therefore, although RS-RARP has few advantages about functional outcomes, we think that caution should be exercised when approaching patients with high-risk local diseases.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: A single dose of preventive antibiotics is known to be sufficient to reduce the rate of infection-related complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). However, some studies reported that the extended dose showed lower complications for high-risk groups. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing single- and extended-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for PCNL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant studies that compared single- and extended-dose antibiotic prophylactic therapies were identified. Articles were selected from PubMed, EMBASE, KoreaMed, and Google Scholar up to September 2021. Fever and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) were compared by meta-analysis. A subgroup analysis was performed according to the degree of risk to the patient. RESULTS: A total of 10 articles were included in this study. There were no significant differences between single dose and extended dose in the rate of fever [p = 0.93, OR = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-2.13, I2 = 64%]. Extended dose showed lower rate of SIRS compared to single dose (p = 0.0005, OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.30-2.53, I2 = 53%); in the subgroup analysis, extended dose also showed lower rates of SIRS compared to single dose in high-risk patients (p <0.0001, OR = 3.53, 95% CI 1.91-6.54, I2 = 36%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our meta-analysis showed that single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis can be effective for PCNL, but extended-dose antibiotics can be required in high-risk patients to reduce post-PCNL infection-related complications.

Evaluation of Performance Parameters of the Disposable Flexible Ureterorenoscope (LITHOVUE) in Patients with Renal Stones: A Prospective, Observational, Single-arm, Multicenter Study.

We investigated performance parameters of disposable flexible ureterorenoscopy (LITHOVUE) in patients with renal stones in a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Sixty two patients who underwent ureterorenoscopic surgery by LITHOVUE were included. Surgeons using a numerical scale, evaluated the maneuverability of the scopes and general perceptions of visibility related to the monitor and irrigation systems. General pain and fatigue scores were evaluated and compared to existing scopes. Mean patient age was 57.3 years and stone size was 15.4 mm. Clinical success of overall stone removal was 82.3%. Complications occurred in 4 cases of the Clavien classification grade I in a single case and II in 3 cases. Comparative parameters of maneuverability, perception of the monitor system and perception of the irrigation channel were 2.5, 2.5, and 3.0, respectively. The most favorable evaluation of physical strain was about 'shoulder fatigue' and 'hand fatigue'. Unfavorable evaluations were recorded for 'wrist stiffness' and 'thumb fatigue'. Maximal deflection angles of 270° were preserved in 53 cases (85.5%). No pre-stenting procedure and the longer operative time were significant predictors of poorly-preserved deflection angles <270°. LITHOVUE showed good maneuverability and perception scores for the monitor and irrigation systems. LITHOVUE received favorable evaluations on pain and fatigue scores.

Current status of radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer.

Despite the wide application of prostate-specific antigen-based screening leading to a profound stage migration in prostate cancer (PC), a significant percentage of men are still being diagnosed with clinically high-risk disease that requires aggressive treatment. Optimal management in these patients remains challenging, and strong advocates for radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy, and, increasingly, a multimodal approach abound. Currently, surgery for high-risk PC is frequently applied. RP offers an attractive opportunity for tumor excision either as a definitive management or as a first step in multimodal therapy. Nevertheless, this approach is still controversial. In this review, we discuss the current evidence for the role of RP in this clinical setting, including surgical considerations and outcomes. The role of robot-assisted RP, which is increasingly utilized in Korea in this clinical scenario, is discussed.

Combined tadalafil and α-blocker therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in patients with erectile dysfunction: a multicenter, prospective study.

This prospective study evaluated the safety of tadalafil 5 mg taken once a day in terms of hypotensive side effects and whether it improves lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and restores sexual function in patients with erectile dysfunction who are receiving concomitant α-blocker (AB) therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A total of 158 LUTS/BPH patients receiving AB therapy for ≥3 months were given tadalafil 5 mg once a day. Before treatment with tadalafil (V1), and 4 weeks (V2) and 12 weeks (V3) after starting tadalafil, blood pressure, heart rate, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximal urine flow rate (Qmax), postvoiding residual urine volume, and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score were measured. Of the 158 LUTS/BPH patients, a total of 119 completed the trial. Blood pressure (systolic and diastolic) and heart rate did not change. IPSS and IIEF-5 scores improved significantly, but Qmax and postvoiding residual urine volume did not; however, in the 39 men with a low baseline Qmax (≤10 mL/s), Qmax rose significantly from 7.97 ± 1.44 mL/s (baseline) to 8.91 ± 1.60 mL/s (V3; P = .012). The remaining patients (baseline Qmax >10 mL/s) did not change. At V2 and V3, adverse side effects were observed in 10 men (7.30%) and 6 men (5.04%), respectively. Facial flushing was the most common adverse side effect (6 men at V2 and 4 men at V3), followed by headache (2 men each at V2 and V3) and dizziness (2 men at V2). Two patients dropped out of the study because of adverse side effects. In conclusion, tadalafil 5 mg once a day in combination with AB appeared to have few adverse effects on hypotensive events and can improve LUTS and restore sexual function.

Laparoendoscopic single-site urological surgery using a homemade single port device: the first 70 cases performed at a single center by one surgeon.

PURPOSE: Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery was used to treat various urological operations by a single surgeon who was skilled in conventional laparoscopic surgery. The effectiveness and safety of the procedure were examined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: LESS surgery was performed on 70 patients by using a homemade single port device composed of an Alexis® wound retractor and a powder-free surgical glove. There were 29 cases of varicocelectomy (including two bilateral cases), 21 cases of renal cyst marsupialization (including one bilateral case), 16 cases of ureterolithotomy, 3 cases of radical nephrectomy, and 1 case of radical nephroureterectomy. The mean patient age was 42.90 ± 17.58 years (range, 11 to 74 years), and the male-to-female ratio was 55:15. RESULTS: In two cases (one ureterolithotomy and one radical nephrectomy), the LESS surgery was converted to conventional laparoscopic surgery. The mean operative time was 96.02 minutes (range, 30 to 285 minutes), the estimated blood loss was 60.80 mL (range, 0 to 500 mL), and the mean hospital stay was 5.10 days (range, 3 to 15 days). Only one patient had to use patient-controlled anesthesia due to pain; none of the patients developed major complications; and all patients were satisfied, with 85.7% expressing a high degree of satisfaction. CONCLUSION: In the urological field, LESS surgery using a homemade single-port device appears to be a feasible and safe surgical treatment option that could replace conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Analysis of prescriptions of alpha-blockers and phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors from the urology department and other departments.

PURPOSE: We analyzed the prescriptions of alpha-blockers and phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) in the urology department as well as in other departments of the general hospital. METHODS: We investigated the frequency of prescription of alpha-blockers and PDE5Is from 3 general hospitals from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009. For alpha-blockers, data were collected from patients to whom alpha-blockers were prescribed from among patients recorded as having benign prostatic hyperplasia according to the 5th Korean Standard Classification of Diseases. For PDE5Is, data were collected from patients to whom PDE5Is were prescribed by the urology department and by other departments. Alpha-blockers were classified into tamsulosin, alfuzosin, doxazosin, and terazosin, whereas PDE5Is were classified into sildenafil, tadalafil, vardenafil, udenafil, and mirodenafil. RESULTS: Alpha-blockers were prescribed to 11,436 patients in total over 3 years, and the total frequency of prescriptions was 68,565. Among other departments, the nephrology department had the highest frequency of prescription of 3,225 (4.7%), followed by the cardiology (3,101, 4.5%), neurology (2,576, 3.8%), endocrinology (2,400, 3.5%), pulmonology (1,102, 1.6%), and family medicine (915, 1.3%) departments in order. PDE5Is were prescribed to 2,854 patients in total over 3 years, and the total frequency of prescriptions was 10,558. The prescription frequency from the urology department was 4,900 (46.4%). Among other departments, the endocrinology department showed the highest prescription frequency of 3,488 (33.0%), followed by the neurology (542, 5.1%), cardiology (467, 4.4%), and family medicine (407, 3.9%) departments in order. CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage of prescriptions of alpha-blockers and PDE5Is were from other departments. For more specialized medical care by urologists is required in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms and erectile dysfunction.