Conventional testicular sperm extraction (TESE) and non-obstructive azoospermia: is there still a chance in the era of microdissection TESE? Results from a single non-academic community hospital.

Spermatozoa can be retrieved in non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) patients despite the absence of ejaculated spermatozoa in their semen because of the presence of isolated foci with active spermatogenesis. Conventional testicular sperm extraction (c-TESE) in patients with NOA has been partially replaced by micro-TESE. It is still under debate the problem regarding the higher costs related to micro-TESE when compared with c-TESE. In this study, we evaluated sperm retrieval rate (SRR) of c-TESE in naive NOA patients. Sixty-three NOA patients were referred to our centre for a c-TESE. For every subject, we collected demographic data, cause of infertility, time to first infertility diagnosis, serum levels of LH, FSH, total testosterone and prolactin. A statistical analysis was conducted to correlate all the clinical variables, the histology and the Johnsen score with the SRR. Sixty-three consecutive NOA patients with a mean age of 37.3 years were included. The positive SRR was 47.6%. No statistical differences were observed between positive vs. negative SRR regarding mean FSH (17.12 vs. 19.03 mUI/mL; p = 0.72), and LH (9.72 vs. 6.92 mUI/mL; p = 0.39) values. Interestingly, we found a statistically significant difference in terms of time to first infertility diagnosis (+SRR vs. -SRR; 44.5 vs. 57 months; p = 0.02) and regarding to age (+SSR vs. -SRR; 40.1 vs. 35.3; p = 0.04). There was a statistically significant decrease in SRRs with the decline in testicular histopathology from hypospermatogenesis to maturation arrest, and SCO. The mean Johnsen score was 5.9 with a mean percentage of Johnsen score ≥8 tubules equal to 19%. The overall pregnancy rate was 26.6%. In our prospective cohort of patients successful SRR with c-TESE was 47.6%. Lower costs and high reproducibility of this technique still support this procedure as an actual reliable option in NOA patients for sperm retrieval.

Fifteen-year single-centre experience with three different surgical procedures of nerve-sparing cystectomy in selected organ-confined bladder cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate technical feasibility and oncologic and functional outcomes of three different surgical procedures of nerve-sparing radical cystectomy (NS-RC) for the treatment of organ-confined bladder cancer at a single referral centre. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive cases of NS-RC carried out between 1997 and 2012 were retrospectively analysed. NS-RC included nerve-sparing cysto-vesicleprostatectomy (NS-CVP), capsule-sparing cystectomy (CS-C) and seminal-sparing cysto-prostatectomy (SS-CP). Peri-operative parameters and post-operative outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: Overall, 90 patients underwent NS-RC, 35 (38.9 %) of whom received a NS-CVP, while 36 (40 %) and 19 (21.1 %) underwent capsule CS-C and SS-CP, respectively. No difference was registered comparing oncologic outcomes of the three different techniques; however, two local recurrences after CS-C were attributed to the surgical technique. Complete post-operative daytime and night-time urinary continence (UC) at 24 and 48 months was achieved in 94.4 and 74.4 % and in 88.8 and 84.4 % of cases, respectively. CS-C showed both the best UC and sexual function preservation rate at early follow-up (24 months). Overall, a satisfactory post-operative erectile function (IIEF-5 ≥ 22) was proved in 57 (68.6 %) and 54 (65.0 %) patients at 24 and 48 months, respectively. Significant difference was found when comparing sexual function preservation rate of NS-CVP (28.5 %) to that of CS-C (91.6 %) and SS-CP (84.2 %). CONCLUSION: NS-RC for male patients accounted for 7.4 % of overall radical cystectomy. To a limited extent of the selected organ-confined bladder cancers treated, the three different procedures analysed showed comparable results in terms of local recurrence and cancer-specific survival. Both CS-C and SS-CP procedures provided excellent functional outcomes when compared to original NS-CVP.

Effects of Difaprost® on voiding dysfunction, histology and inflammation markers in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia who are candidates for surgical treatment.

AIM: Although previous studies assessed the effects of Serenoa repens, quercetin and ß-sitosterol on inflammatory parameters, no randomized studies have tested the combination of these agents neither on BPH symptoms nor on the inflammatory pattern. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the effects of Difaprost® on voiding dysfunction, histological inflammatory alterations and apoptotic molecular mechanisms in BPH patients. METHODS: We included 36 patients affected by BPH with obstructive symptoms eligible for surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: 18 patients received Difaprost® for three months before surgery, and 18 patients did not receive any additional therapy and were scheduled for surgery. All patients receiving Difaprost® were evaluated with uroflowmetry with post-void residual volume (PVR) evaluation, serum PSA, and IPSS questionnaire before and after treatment. Moreover, we evaluated inflammatory patterns in prostatic specimens at final pathology. RESULTS: Even without statistically significant differences on inflammatory pattern between patients receiving Difaprost® and controls, patients receiving Difaprost® had lower presence of edema and angiectasia at histological evaluation of prostate specimens. Moreover, patients included in the treatment group had a clinically significant reduction of PVR (46.1 vs. 25.2 mL; P=0.1) and a slight increase in Qmed (5.6 vs. 6.5 mL/s; P=0.9) after three months of chronic treatment with Difaprost®. No statistically significant differences were recorded in other clinical parameters between patients receiving Difaprost® and controls. CONCLUSION: Although not statistically significant, patients treated with Difaprost® showed an improvement in voiding function compared to controls (namely, an increase in Qmed and a reduction of PVR). Future trials with a larger number of patients and a longer treatment period could be necessary to evaluate the clinical efficacy of Difaprost®.