The Added Value of MRI-Based Targeted Biopsy in Biopsy-Naïve Patients: A Propensity-Score Matched Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI)-based targeted biopsy has shown to be beneficial in detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) and avoiding diagnosis of Non-csPCa (ncsPCa); however, its role in the treatment of biopsy-naïve patients is still under discussion. METHODS: After identifying predictors for the diagnosis of csPCa via Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis (MLRA), a propensity-score (1:1 nearest neighbor) matched comparison was performed between a Systematic-Only Biopsy (SOB) cohort and a mpMRI-based Combined (systematic + targeted) Biopsy (CB) cohort from two tertiary urologic centers (SOB: Department of Urology, University General Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete, School of Medicine, Heraklion, Crete, Greece; CB: LKH Hall in Tirol, Austria). Only biopsy-naïve patients were included in the study. The study period for the included patients was from February 2018 to July 2023 for the SOB group and from July 2017 to June 2023 for the CB group. The primary outcome was the diagnosis of csPCa (≥ISUP 2); secondary outcomes were overall cancer detection, the added value of targeted biopsy in csPCa detection, and the reduction in ncsPCa diagnosis with CB compared to SOB. To estimate the Average Treatment effect of the Treated groups (ATT), cluster-robust standard errors were used to perform g-computation in the matched sample. p-values < 0.05 with a two-sided 95% confidence interval were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Matching achieved well-balanced groups (each n = 140 for CB and SOB). In the CB group, 65/140 (46.4%) patients were diagnosed with csPCa compared to 44/140 (31.4%) in the SOB group (RR 1.48, 95%-CI: 1.09-2.0, p = 0.01). In the CB group, 4.3% (6/140) and 1.4% (2/140) of csPCa cases were detected with targeted-only and systematic-only biopsy cores, respectively. In the CB group, 22/140 (15.7%) patients were diagnosed with ncsPCa compared to 33/140 (23.6%) in the SOB group (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.41-1.08, p = 0.1). When comparing SOB to CB (ATT), the marginal OR was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.38-0.82, p = 0.003) for the diagnosis of csPCa and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.47-1.05, p = 0.085) for the diagnosis of overall cancer (≥ISUP 1). CONCLUSION: The CB approach was superior to the SOB approach in detecting csPCa, while no additional detection of ncsPCa was seen. Our results support the application of mpMRI for biopsy-naïve patients with suspicions of prostate cancer.

PSA-density, DRE, and PI-RADS 5: potential surrogates for omitting biopsy?

OBJECTIVE: In contrast to other malignancies, histologic confirmation prior treatment in patients with a high suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA) is common. To analyze the impact of extracapsular extension (ECE), cT-stage defined by digital rectal examination (DRE), and PSA-density (PSA-D) on detection of csPCA in patients with at least one PI-RADS 5 lesion (hereinafter, "PI-RADS 5 patients"). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PI-RADS 5 patients who underwent MRI/Ultrasound fusion biopsy (Bx) between 2016 and 2020 were identified in our institutional database. Uni- and multivariable logistic-regression models were used to identify predictors of csPCA-detection (GGG ≥ 2). Risk models were adjusted for ECE, PSA-D, and cT-stage. Corresponding Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated. RESULTS: Among 493 consecutive PI-RADS 5 patients, the median age and PSA was 69 years (IQR 63-74) and 8.9 ng/ml (IQR 6.0-13.7), respectively. CsPCA (GGG ≥ 2) was detected in 405/493 (82%); 36/493 patients (7%) had no cancer. When tabulating for PSA-D of > 0.2 ng/ml/cc and > 0.5 ng/ml/cc, csPCA was found in 228/253 (90%, PI-RADS5 + PSA-D > 0.2 ng/ml/cc) and 54/54 (100%, PI-RADS5 + PSA-D > 0.5 ng/ml/cc). Finally, a model incorporating PSA-D and cT-stage achieved an AUC of 0.79 (CI 0.74-0.83). CONCLUSION: In PI-RADS 5 patients, PSA-D and cT-stage emerged as strong predictors of csPCA at biopsy. Moreover, when adding the threshold of PSA-D > 0,5 ng/ml/cc, all PI-RADS 5 patients were diagnosed with csPCA. Therefore, straight treatment for PCA can be considered, especially if risk-factors for biopsy-related complications such as obligatory dual platelet inhibition are present.

Improved early continence following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the urethral hammock technique.

PURPOSE: To introduce and illustrate a novel urethral reconstruction technique-the 'urethral hammock-technique'-and to assess its impact on early postoperative continence following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). METHODS: 119 patients who underwent LRP between January 2020 and May 2022 (hammock group: n = 43, control group: n = 76) were included in the study. The primary outcome was continence (zero pads or max. one security pad) at 1, 3, and 6 months following surgery. Secondary outcomes were operative time, complications, and histological findings. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to reveal predictors for continence. p values < 0.05 with a two-sided 95%-confidence interval were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable among both groups. The number of patients achieving complete continence in both the hammock and control groups at various time intervals was: 4 weeks 37.2% (16/43) vs. 19.2% (14/73) (p = 0.047); 3 months 60.5% (26/43) vs. 37.3% (28/75) (p = 0.021) and 6 months 72.1% (31/43) vs. 60.3% (44/73) (p = 0.23), respectively. Adjusting for bladder neck preservation status and age, the hammock technique was a significant predictor for continence for the 4-week (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.83, p = 0.019) and 3-month (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12-0.66, p = 0.004) interval but not for the 6-month interval (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.27-1.5, p = 0.31). Operative time, complication rates, time till catheter extraction and histological findings were comparable between both groups (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The hammock technique is a simple and reproducible technique to improve early postoperative continence for at least 3 months following surgery. However, these promising results warrant confirmation through a randomized controlled trial.

Do we need MRI in all biopsy naïve patients? A multicenter cohort analysis.

PURPOSE: The combined approach (CB) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy (TB) and systematic biopsy (SB) is strongly recommended based on numerous studies in biopsy naïve men with suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA). However, the unbalanced accessibility of MRI, challenges related to reimbursement and the scarcity of specialized medical practitioners continue to impede a widespread implementation. Therefore, our objective was to determine a subset of men that could undergo SB without an increased risk of underdiagnosis at reduced expenses. METHODS: A multicenter analysis of 2714 men with confirmed PCA and suspicious MRI who underwent CB were enrolled. Cancer detection rates were compared between the different biopsy routes SB, TB and CB using McNemar paired test. Additionally, Gleason grade up- and down-grading was determined. RESULTS: CB detected more csPCA than TB and SB (p < 0.001), irrespective of MRI findings or biopsy route (transperineal vs. transrectal). Thereby, single biopsy approaches misgraded > 50% of csPCA. TB showed higher diagnostic efficiency, defined as csPCA detection per biopsy core than CB and SB (p < 0.001). For patients with abnormal DRE and PSA levels > 12.5 ng/ml, PSAD > 0.35 ng/ml/cm3, or > 75 years, SB and CB showed similar csPCA detection rates. CONCLUSION: Conducting CB provides the highest level of diagnostic certainty and minimizes the risk of underdiagnosis in almost all biopsy-naive men. However, in patients with suspicious DRE and high PSA levels, PSAD, or advanced age solely using SB leads to similar csPCA detection rates. Thus, a reduced biopsy protocol may be considered for these men in case resources are limited.

Transurethral resection of bladder tumor: A systematic review of simulator-based training courses and curricula.

Objective: Transurethral resection of bladder tumor is one of the most common everyday urological procedures. This kind of surgery demands a set of skills that need training and experience. In this review, we aimed to investigate the current literature to find out if simulators, phantoms, and other training models could be used as a tool for teaching urologists. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the recommendations of the European Association of Urology guidelines for conducting systematic reviews. Fifteen out of 932 studies met our inclusion criteria and are presented in the current review. Results: The UroTrainer (Karl Storz GmbH, Tuttlingen, Germany), a virtual reality training simulator, achieved positive feedback and an excellent face and construct validity by the participants. The inspection of bladder mucosa, blood loss, tumor resection, and procedural time was improved after the training, especially for inexperienced urologists and medical students. The construct validity of UroSim® (VirtaMed, Zurich, Switzerland) was established. SIMBLA simulator (Samed GmbH, Dresden, Germany) was found to be a realistic and useful tool by experts and urologists with intermediate experience. The test objective competency model based on SIMBLA simulator could be used for evaluating urologists. The porcine model of the Asian Urological Surgery Training and Education Group also received positive feedback by the participants that tried it. The Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning Initiative Project had an extraordinary face and content validity, and 60% of participants would like to use the simulators in the future. The 5-day multimodal training curriculum "Boot Camp" in the United Kingdom achieved an increase of the level of confidence of the participants that lasted months after the project. Conclusion: Simulators and courses or curricula based on a simulator training could be a valuable learning tool for any surgeon, and there is no doubt that they should be a part of every urologist's technical education.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of bladder cancer: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (TRUST)-Group.

PURPOSE: To identify laser settings and limits applied by experts during laser vaporization (vapBT) and laser en-bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT) and to identify preventive measures to reduce complications. METHODS: After a focused literature search to identify relevant questions, we conducted a survey (57 questions) which was sent to laser experts. The expert selection was based on clinical experience and scientific contribution. Participants were asked for used laser types, typical laser settings during specific scenarios, and preventive measures applied during surgery. Settings for a maximum of 2 different lasers for each scenario were possible. Responses and settings were compared among the reported laser types. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 29 (79.3%) invited experts completed the survey. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) is the most common laser (57%), followed by Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminium-Garnet (Ho:YAG) (48%), continuous wave (cw) Thulium:Yttrium-Aluminium-Garnet (Tm:YAG) (26%), and pulsed Tm:YAG (13%). Experts prefer ERBT (91.3%) to vapBT (8.7%); however, relevant limitations such as tumor size, number, and anatomical tumor location exist. Laser settings were generally comparable; however, we could find significant differences between the laser sources for lateral wall ERBT (p = 0.028) and standard ERBT (p = 0.033), with cwTm:YAG and pulsed Tm:YAG being operated in higher power modes when compared to TFL and Ho:YAG. Experts prefer long pulse modes for Ho:YAG and short pulse modes for TFL lasers. CONCLUSION: TFL seems to have replaced Ho:YAG and Tm:YAG. Most laser settings do not differ significantly among laser sources. For experts, continuous flow irrigation is the most commonly applied measure to reduce complications.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of urolithiasis: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training-Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group.

PURPOSE: To identify laser lithotripsy settings used by experts for specific clinical scenarios and to identify preventive measures to reduce complications. METHODS: After literature research to identify relevant questions, a survey was conducted and sent to laser experts. Participants were asked for preferred laser settings during specific clinical lithotripsy scenarios. Different settings were compared for the reported laser types, and common settings and preventive measures were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-six laser experts fully returned the survey. Holmium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) was the primary laser used (88%), followed by thulium fiber laser (TFL) (42%) and pulsed thulium-yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) (23%). For most scenarios, we could not identify relevant differences among laser settings. However, the laser power was significantly different for middle-ureteral (p = 0.027), pelvic (p = 0.047), and lower pole stone (p = 0.018) lithotripsy. Fragmentation or a combined fragmentation with dusting was more common for Ho:YAG and pulsed Tm:YAG lasers, whereas dusting or a combination of dusting and fragmentation was more common for TFL lasers. Experts prefer long pulse modes for Ho:YAG lasers to short pulse modes for TFL lasers. Thermal injury due to temperature development during lithotripsy is seriously considered by experts, with preventive measures applied routinely. CONCLUSIONS: Laser settings do not vary significantly between commonly used lasers for lithotripsy. Lithotripsy techniques and settings mainly depend on the generated laser pulse's and generator settings' physical characteristics. Preventive measures such as maximum power limits, intermittent laser activation, and ureteral access sheaths are commonly used by experts to decrease thermal injury-caused complications.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.) group.

PURPOSE: To highlight and compare experts' laser settings during endoscopic laser treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), to identify measures to reduce complications, and to propose guidance for endourologists. METHODS: Following a focused literature search to identify relevant questions, a survey was sent to laser experts. We asked participants for typical settings during specific scenarios (ureteroscopy (URS), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous treatment). These settings were compared among the reported laser types to find common settings and limits. Additionally, we identified preventive measures commonly applied during surgery. RESULTS: Twenty experts completed the survey, needing a mean time of 12.7 min. Overall, most common laser type was Holmium-Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Ho:YAG) (70%, 14/20) followed by Thulium fiber laser (TFL) (45%, 9/20), pulsed Thulium-Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Tm:YAG) (3/20, 15%), and continuous wave (cw)Tm:YAG (1/20, 5%). Pulse energy for the treatment of distal ureteral tumors was significantly different with median settings of 0.9 J, 1 J and 0.45 J for Ho:YAG, TFL and pulsed Tm:YAG, respectively (p = 0.048). During URS and RIRS, pulse shapes were significantly different, with Ho:YAG being used in long pulse and TFL in short pulse mode (all p < 0.05). We did not find further disparities. CONCLUSION: Ho:YAG is used by most experts, while TFL is the most promising alternative. Laser settings largely do not vary significantly. However, further research with novel lasers is necessary to define the optimal approach. With the recent introduction of small caliber and more flexible scopes, minimal-invasive UTUC treatment is further undergoing an extension of applicability in appropriately selected patients.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the endoscopic treatment of prostate hypertrophy: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training-Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group.

PURPOSE: To identify expert laser settings for BPH treatment and evaluate the application of preventive measures to reduce complications. METHODS: A survey was conducted after narrative literature research to identify relevant questions regarding laser use for BPH treatment (59 questions). Experts were asked for laser settings during specific clinical scenarios. Settings were compared for the reported laser types, and common settings and preventive measures were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-two experts completed the survey with a mean filling time of 12.9 min. Ho:YAG, Thulium fiber laser (TFL), continuous wave (cw) Tm:YAG, pulsed Tm:YAG and Greenlight™ lasers are used by 73% (16/22), 50% (11/22), 23% (5/22), 13.6% (3/22) and 9.1% (2/22) of experts, respectively. All experts use anatomical enucleation of the prostate (EEP), preferentially in one- or two-lobe technique. Laser settings differ significantly between laser types, with median laser power for apical/main gland EEP of 75/94 W, 60/60 W, 100/100 W, 100/100 W, and 80/80 W for Ho:YAG, TFL, cwTm:YAG, pulsed Tm:YAG and Greenlight™ lasers, respectively (p = 0.02 and p = 0.005). However, power settings within the same laser source are similar. Pulse shapes for main gland EEP significantly differ between lasers with long and pulse shape modified (e.g., Moses, Virtual Basket) modes preferred for Ho:YAG and short pulse modes for TFL (p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: Ho:YAG lasers no longer seem to be the mainstay of EEP. TFL lasers are generally used in pulsed mode though clinical applicability for quasi-continuous settings has recently been demonstrated. One and two-lobe techniques are beneficial regarding operative time and are used by most experts.

Prediction of Significant Prostate Cancer in Equivocal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions: A High-volume International Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Decision of performing prostate biopsy in men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 findings in prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is challenging as they have a low but still relevant risk of harboring significant prostate cancer (sPC). OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical predictors of sPC in men with PI-RADS 3 lesions in prostate MRI and to analyze the hypothetical effect of incorporating prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) into biopsy decision. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed a retrospective multinational cohort from ten academic centers comprising 1476 men who underwent a combined prostate biopsy (MRI targeted plus systematic biopsy) between February 2012 and April 2021 due to a PI-RADS 3 lesion in prostate MRI. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the detection of sPC (ISUP ≥2) in a combined biopsy. Predictors were identified by a regression analysis. Descriptive statistics were applied to evaluate the hypothetical effect of involving PSAD into biopsy decision. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of all patients, 273/1476 (18.5%) were diagnosed with sPC. MRI-targeted biopsy diagnosed fewer sPC cases than combined strategy: 183/1476 (12.4%) versus 273/1476 (18.5%), p < 0.01. Age (odds ratio [OR] 1.10 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.05-1.15], p < 0.001), prior negative biopsy (OR 0.46 [0.24-0.89], p = 0.022), and PSAD (p < 0.001) were found to be independent predictors of sPC. Applying a PSAD cutoff of 0.15, 817/1398 (58.4%) biopsies would have been avoided at the cost of missing sPC in 91 (6.5%) men. Limitations were the retrospective design, heterogeneity of the study cohort due to the long inclusion period, and no central revision of MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Age, previous biopsy status, and PSAD were found to be independent predictors of sPC in men with equivocal prostate MRI. Implementation of PSAD into biopsy decision can avoid unnecessary biopsies. Clinical parameters such as PSAD need validation in a prospective setting. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we looked for clinical predictors of significant prostate cancer in men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions in prostate magnetic resonance imaging. We identified age, previous biopsy status, and especially prostate-specific antigen density as independent predictors.

Peri- and post-operative outcomes, complications, and functional results amongst different modifications of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate and assess outcomes, complications, and functional results amongst different modifications of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA checklist. We searched the Medline, Cochrane, and Embase databases. We included only randomised-controlled trials (RCT) comparing modifications of EEPs and assessed the risk of bias (RoB). RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included in the study. Overall, 1266 patients were treated with Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and 80 patients with thulium laser vapo-enucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP). The operative time during pulse shape-modified HoLEP was shorter when compared to standard pulse HoLEP (MD 18.08 min, 95% CI 8.11-28.05 min, p = 0.0004). The decrease in haemoglobin was significantly lower for two-lobe HoLEP when compared to three-lobe HoLEP (MD 0.16 g/dl, 95% CI 0.22-0.1 g/dl, p < 0.00001). Virtual Basket (VB) HoLEP showed a smaller haemoglobin decrease when compared to standard pulse HoLEP (1.12 ± 1.78 vs. 2.54 ± 1.23 g/dl, p = 0.03). When directly comparing one- vs. two- vs. three-lobe HoLEP, surgical time (p < 0.001) and enucleation efficiency (p = 0.006) were significantly different and favouring one- and two-lobe HoLEP in the study with the largest patient population included. No significant differences for complications were observed; however, Clavien-Dindo IVa events were reported for two patients. CONCLUSION: All variations of EEP improve symptoms and functional parameters with a low incidence of high-grade complications. One- and two-lobe approaches and pulse shape-modified HoLEP seem to be beneficial in terms of operative time and blood loss.

Irrigation fluid absorption during transurethral bipolar and laser prostate surgery: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Transurethral endoscopic procedures using bipolar current, or laser energy are nowadays widely accepted and have replaced the traditional monopolar resection. A major advantage of these techniques is the utilization of isotonic saline as irrigation solution, which minimizes side effects such as symptoms associated to classical transurethral resection syndrome (TUR-syndrome). Nonetheless, clinically significant IFA also occurs with saline and is determined by pressure gradients, systemic resistance and by the amount of irrigation fluid. We aimed to investigate the extend of IFA and symptoms due to volume overload during bipolar transurethral resection (bTUR) and laser procedures of the prostate. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search using PubMed, restricted to original English-written articles, including animal, artificial model, and human studies. Search terms were TUR, transurethral, laser, HoLEP, ThuLEP, greenlight, enucleation, fluid absorption, fluid uptake, and TUR-syndrome. RESULTS: Mean and maximum IFA during bTURP ranges between 133 and 915 ml and 1019 ml and 2166 ml, respectively. Absorption during laser procedures can be significant with maximum values up to 4579 ml and mainly occurs during prostate vaporization techniques. Incidence of moderate to severe symptoms from iso-osmolar volume overload reaches 9%. CONCLUSIONS: Irrigation fluid absorption during bTUR and laser surgery of the prostate is not negligible. Iso-osmolar overhydration with development of non-classical TUR-syndrome should be identified peri- and postoperatively and surgical teams should be aware of complications. Breath ethanol, venous pH, serum chloride, and bicarbonate could be markers for detecting dangerous events of IFA with saline.

Simulation training in transurethral resection/laser vaporization of the prostate; evidence from a systematic review by the European Section of Uro-Technology.

PURPOSE: Transurethral resection (TURP) and photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) constitute established surgical options to treat benign prostate hyperplasia. We investigated the current literature for simulators that could be used as a tool for teaching urologists alone or within the boundaries of a course or a curriculum. METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL. Search terms included: Simulat*, train*, curricull*, transurethral, TUR*, vaporesect*, laser. The efficacy of different simulators and the impact of different devices, curricula and courses in training and trainee learning curves were the primary endpoints. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies are selected and presented. Validated virtual reality TURP simulators are the UW VR, PelvicVision, Uro-Trainer, and TURPsim™. Validated synthetic TURP models are Dr. K. Forke's TURP trainer, Bristol TURP trainer, different tissue prostate models, and 3D-printed phantoms. The Myo Sim PVP and the GreenLightTM are sufficiently validated PVP simulators. Several TURP and PVP training curricula have been developed and judged as applicable. Finally, the TURP modules of the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) Hands-on Training course and the Urology Simulation Bootcamp Course (USBC) are the most basic annual TURP courses identified in the international literature. CONCLUSIONS: Simulators and courses or curricula are valuable learning and training TURP/PVP tools. The existent models seem efficient, are not always adequately evaluated and accepted. As part of training curricula and training courses, the use of training simulators can significantly improve quality for young urologists' education and clinical practice.

Relevance of intravesical pressures during transurethral procedures.

PURPOSE: Endourology has undergone fundamental changes over the last 2 decades. Maintaining low intrarenal pressure (IRP) during upper urinary tract procedures is an established concept. However, researchers have not yet studied the concept of reduced intravesical pressures (IVPs) during transurethral (TUR) surgery as thoroughly. Low IVP is supposed to decrease complications as fluid retention, TUR syndrome, and incidence of fever. The study aims to give an overview of the contemporarily existing concepts and specify the term of low IVP to avoid TUR-related complications and optimize TUR-related results. METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, restricted to original English-written articles, including animal, artificial model, and human studies. Different keywords were transurethral resection, transurethral enucleation, transurethral vaporization, pressure, fluid absorption, and TUR syndrome. RESULTS: Analyzed mean IVPs during TUR vary between 11 and 35 cmH2O but are mostly kept below 30 cmH2O. Mean maximum IVPs during TUR range from 20 to 55 cmH2O. Maximum IVPs seem to be lower when surgeons utilize continuous flow resection, and irrigation pressures are kept low. The results demonstrate a strong correlation between IVP levels and fluid absorption. CONCLUSIONS: IVP increase remains a neglected predictor of transurethral procedure complications, and endourologists should consider its intraoperative monitoring. Further research is necessary to quantify generated pressures and introduce means of controlling them.

Transperineal prostate biopsy: The modern gold standard to prostate cancer diagnosis.

In patients suspicious for prostate cancer, a prostate biopsy should be performed. Biopsies are possible either by the transrectal or transperineal routes. Compared with the transrectal prostate biopsy (TRPBx), transperineal prostate biopsy (TPPBx) offers a non-inferior cancer detection rate (CDR), especially in patients undergoing re-biopsy for persistently elevated PSA and in cases of active surveillance (AS), in which TPPBx seems to be superior. Moreover, the transperineal route achieves superior sampling of the anterior and apical regions, especially after previous multiple negative TRPBx. Infectious complications are nullified due to avoidance of needle passage through the rectal mucosa, and there is a highly significant evidence of reduced fever and sepsis rates when compared with TRPBx, with maintaining acceptable urinary retention rates. This is an important upcoming topic due to the increasing antibiotic resistance rates, thus reducing periinterventional hospitalization and health care costs. To date, TPPBx is perfectly feasible in the inpatient and out-patient settings and under local anesthesia, characterized by a moderate learning curve and a good reproducibility. By applying mpMRI as a diagnostic tool, clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection seems to be comparable to transrectal MRI-fusion biopsy (TR-MRIFBx). Finally, focal treatment of localized disease is currently performed exclusively through a TP approach.