Water vapor thermal therapy: Technical variations among spanish hospitals and efficacy at 2-year follow-up.

AIM: The aim of this work is to evaluate the initial experience with water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in Spanish university hospitals, as well as to describe the differences in technique and follow-up between centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational multicenter study collected baseline characteristics, surgical, postoperative and follow-up data at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months, including validated questionnaires, flowmetric variations, complications, and the need for pharmacological or surgical treatment following the procedure. Possible triggers for postoperative acute urinary retention (AUR) were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were included. No differences were observed between the groups with and without AUR with respect to catheterization time (5 and 4.3 days respectively, P=.178), or prostate volume (47.9g and 41.4g respectively, P=.147). The mean improvement at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months in terms of peak flow was 5.3, 5.2, 4.2 and 3.8ml/s, respectively. As for ejaculation, an improvement was observed after 3 months of follow-up and was maintained over time. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive treatment for BPH with WVTT shows good functional outcomes at 24 months follow-up, without significant impairment of sexual function and a low incidence of complications. There are minor inter-hospital variations, mainly in the immediate postoperative period.

Robot-assisted vs. open radical cystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been launched in the last decade to examine the surgical safety and oncological efficacy of robot-assisted (RARC) vs open radical cystectomy (ORC) for patients with bladder cancer. The aim of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of RARC vs ORC. METHODS: A literature search was conducted through July 2022 using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. The outcomes were intraoperative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes of RARC vs ORC. RESULTS: A total of eight RCTs comprising 1,024 patients met our inclusion criteria. RARC was associated with longer operative time (mean 92.34min, 95% CI 83.83-100.84, p<0.001) and lower blood transfusion rate (Odds ratio [OR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.30-0.61, p<0.001). No differences emerged in terms of 90-day overall (p=0.28) and major (p=0.57) complications, length of stay (p=0.18), bowel recovery (p=0.67), health-related quality of life (p=0.86), disease recurrence (p=0.77) and progression (p=0.49) between the two approaches. The main limitation is represented by the low number of patients included in half of RCTs included. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports that RARC is not inferior to ORC in terms of surgical safety and oncological outcomes. The benefit of RARC in terms of lower blood transfusion rate need to be balanced with the cost related to the procedure.