Does climate impact inflatable penile prosthesis infection (IPP) risk? Assessment of temperature and dew point on IPP infections.

BACKGROUND: Variations in climate have been associated with a greater risk of surgical site infections, urinary tract infections, and changes in the skin microbiome; however, limited data exist on the impact of climate on inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infections. AIM: We sought to evaluate the impact of climate on the risk of IPP infections in a large international, multicenter cohort. METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients undergoing IPP surgery. We then evaluated whether the month or season, during which surgery was performed, affected device infections. Implant infections were defined as infections requiring device explantation. A univariate logistic regression analysis was undertaken. OUTCOMES: Our primary outcome was implant infection. RESULTS: A total of 5289 patients with a mean age of 62.2 ± 10.8 years received IPP placement. There was a fairly even distribution of implants performed in each season. A total of 103 (1.9%) infections were recorded. There were 32 (31.1%) IPP infections in patients who underwent surgery in the summer, followed by 28 (27.2%) in the winter, 26 (25.2%) in the spring, and 17 (16.5%) in the fall. No statistically significant differences were recorded in terms of season (P = .19) and month (P = .29). The mean daily temperature (P = .43), dew point (P = .43), and humidity (P = .92) at the time of IPP placement was not associated with infection. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings provide reassurance to prosthetic urologists that infection reduction strategies do not need to be tailored to local climate. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Climate data were not directly recorded for each hospital, but rather based on the monthly averages in the city where the surgery was performed. CONCLUSION: The climate at time of IPP placement and time of year of surgery is not associated with IPP infection risk.

The effect of hospital caseload on perioperative mortality, morbidity and costs in bladder cancer patients undergoing radical cystectomy: results of the German nationwide inpatient data.

OBJECTIVES: To determine a data-based optimal annual radical cystectomy (RC) hospital volume threshold and evaluate its clinical significance regarding perioperative mortality, complications, length of hospital stay, and hospital revenues. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used the German Nationwide inpatient Data, provided by the Research Data Center of the Federal Bureau of Statistics (2005-2020). 95,841 patients undergoing RC were included. Based on ROC analyses, the optimal RC threshold to reduce mortality, ileus, sepsis, transfusion, hospital stay, and costs is 54, 50, 44, 44, 71 and 76 cases/year, respectively. Therefore, we defined an optimal annual hospital threshold of 50 RCs/year, and we also used the threshold of 20 RCs/year proposed by the EAU guidelines to perform multiple patient-level analyses. RESULTS: 28,291 (29.5%) patients were operated in low- (< 20 RC/year), 49,616 (51.8%) in intermediate- (20-49 RC/year), and 17,934 (18.7%) in high-volume (≥ 50 RC/year) centers. After adjusting for major risk factors, high-volume centers were associated with lower inpatient mortality (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.8, p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (2.7 days, 95% CI 2.4-2.9, p < 0.001) and lower costs (457 Euros, 95% CI 207-707, p < 0.001) compared to low-volume centers. Patients operated in low-volume centers developed more perioperative complications such as transfusion, sepsis, and ileus. CONCLUSIONS: Centralization of RC not only improves inpatient morbidity and mortality but also reduces hospital stay and costs. We propose a threshold of 50 RCs/year for optimal outcomes.

Penile fractures: the price of a merry Christmas.

OBJECTIVES: To explore whether Christmas might be a risk factor for penile fractures due to the Christmas spirit related to the intimacy and euphoria of these holly jolly days. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated the incidence of penile fractures during Christmas and New Year's Eve through the GeRmAn Nationwide inpatient Data (GRAND) from the Research Data Center of the Federal Bureau of Statistics (Wiesbaden, Germany). Furthermore, we assessed the impact of COVID-19 on penile fractures and their seasonality. RESULTS: A total of 3,421 patients with a median, interquartile range (IQR) age of 42 (32-51) years had a penile fracture requiring a hospital stay from 2005 to 2021. In all, 40 (1.2%) penile fractures occurred in 51 days of Christmas (from 24/12 to 26/12 in each year). The daily incidence of penile fractures during Christmas was 0.78 with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.95, P = 0.02). If every day was like Christmas, 43% more penile fractures would have occurred in Germany from 2005 on. Interestingly, only 28 (0.82%) penile fractures occurred during the New Year's Eve period (31/12 to 02/01 from 2005 to 2021). This resulted in an IRR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.69-1.5, P = 0.98) in the New Year's Eve period. Most patients with penile fractures were admitted to hospital at the weekend (n = 1,322; IRR 1.58, 95% CI 1.48-1.69; P < 0.001). Summer was also associated with more penile fractures (n = 929; IRR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.19; P = 0.008). Both the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 385; IRR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95-1.18, P = 0.29) and its lockdown period (n = 93; IRR 1, 95% CI 0.82-1.23; P = 0.96) did not affect the incidence of penile fractures. CONCLUSION: The incidence of penile fractures displays a seasonality. Last Christmas penile fractures occurred more often. This year to save us from tears, we will NOT do something special (the new Christmas hit of the year).

Assessment of single-probe dual-energy lithotripters in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of single-probe dual-energy (SPDE) lithotripters in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Embase databases until July 2022 for any preclinical or clinical studies, exploring the safety and efficacy of different SPDE lithotripters in patients undergoing PCNL. We performed a meta-analysis to compare stone-free rate, bleeding, or other complications and mean operative time between SPDE lithotripters and other lithotripters (PROSPERO: CRD42021285631). RESULTS: We included 16 studies (six preclinical, seven observational and three randomized with 625 participants) in the systematic review and four in the meta-analysis. Preclinical studies suggest that SPDE lithotripters are safe and effective for the management of renal stones. Among clinical studies, four studies assessed Trilogy with no comparative arm, two compared Trilogy or ShockPulse with a dual-probe dual-energy lithotripter, two compared Trilogy with a laser, one compared ShockPulse with a pneumatic lithotripter, and one directly compared Trilogy with ShockPulse. Comparing SPDE lithotripters to other lithotripters, no significant differences were demonstrated in stone free rate (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53-2.38, I2 = 0%), postoperative blood transfusion (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.34-5.19, I2 = 0%), embolization (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.02-12.06), operative time (WMD: 2.82 min, 95% CI -7.31-12.95, I2 = 78%) and postoperative complications based on the Clavien-Dindo classification. CONCLUSIONS: SPDE lithotripters represent a promising treatment modality for patients requiring PCNL. Despite the initial encouraging findings of preclinical and isolated clinical studies, it seems that Trilogy or ShockPulse provide similar efficiency compared to older generation devices.

Assessment of Conservative Combination Therapies for Active and Stable Peyronie's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: In patients with Peyronie's disease (PD), oral, injected, or topical agents provide limited efficacy. In this setting, combination of two or more conservative treatments may improve symptoms further. OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of available conservative combination therapies for active and stable PD through a systematic review and meta-analysis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched multiple databases and sources of gray literature until June 2021. We included randomized or observational comparative studies assessing any conservative combination therapies for PD. We undertook a random-effect meta-analysis when at least two studies employed the same treatment modality (PROSPERO: CRD42021224517). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 13 studies on active PD and ten on stable PD (1962 participants) were included. Most included studies raised methodological concerns. In patients with active or stable PD, the available evidence is inconclusive to support the use of any combination treatment modality, such as intralesional verapamil injections, antioxidants, and other oral, injected, or topical agents. Based on data availability, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the effect of collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (CCH) plus adjunctive mechanical therapies (penile traction or vacuum pump) versus CCH monotherapy on penile curvature and length in patients with stable PD. CCH and adjunctive mechanical therapies resulted in an additional decrease of 0.3° in penile curvature (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.97 to 4.49, I2 = 0%) and in an increase of 0.5 cm in penile length (95% CI: -0.32 to 1.4, I2 = 70%) compared with CCH monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The available combination treatment modalities, including the addition of adjunctive mechanical therapies to CCH, do not improve symptoms further compared with monotherapy and should not be implemented in patients with active or stable PD. Further high-quality randomized trials combining only recommended treatments are mandatory. PATIENT SUMMARY: Despite the interest in and optimism for combination treatment modalities, the road to an effective conservative therapy for Peyronie's disease still seems long.

Assessment of Combination Therapies vs Monotherapy for Erectile Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Combining 2 first-line treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED) or initiating other modalities in addition to a first-line therapy may produce beneficial outcomes. Objective: To assess whether different ED combination therapies were associated with improved outcomes compared with first-line ED monotherapy in various subgroups of patients with ED. Data Sources: Studies were identified through a systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception of these databases to October 10, 2020. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials or prospective interventional studies of the outcomes of combination therapy vs recommended monotherapy in men with ED were identified. Only comparative human studies, which evaluated the change from baseline of self-reported erectile function using validated questionnaires, that were published in any language were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction and synthesis were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: A meta-analysis was conducted that included randomized clinical trials that compared outcomes of combination therapy with phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors plus another agent vs PDE5 inhibitor monotherapy. Separate analyses were performed for the mean International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score change from baseline and the number of adverse events (AEs) by different treatment modalities and subgroups of patients. Results: A total of 44 studies included 3853 men with a mean (SD) age of 55.8 (11.9) years. Combination therapy compared with monotherapy was associated with a mean IIEF score improvement of 1.76 points (95% CI, 1.27-2.24; I2 = 77%; 95% PI, -0.56 to 4.08). Adding daily tadalafil, low-intensity shockwave therapy, vacuum erectile device, folic acid, metformin hydrochloride, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors was associated with a significant IIEF score improvement, but each measure was based on only 1 study. Specifically, the weighted mean difference (WMD) in IIEF score was 1.70 (95% CI, 0.79-2.61) for the addition of daily tadalafil, 3.50 (95% CI, 0.22-6.78) for the addition of low-intensity shockwave therapy, 8.40 (95% CI, 4.90-11.90) for the addition of a vacuum erectile device, 3.46 (95% CI, 2.16-4.76) for the addition of folic acid, 4.90 (95% CI, 2.82-6.98) for the addition of metformin hydrochloride and 2.07 (95% CI, 1.37-2.77) for the addition of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The addition of α-blockers to PDE5 inhibitors was not associated with improvement in IIEF score (WMD, 0.80; 95% CI, -0.06 to 1.65; I2 = 72%). Compared with monotherapy, combination therapy was associated with improved IIEF score in patients with hypogonadism (WMD, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.99-2.23; I2 = 0%), monotherapy-resistant ED (WMD, 4.38; 95% CI, 2.37-6.40; I2 = 52%), or prostatectomy-induced ED (WMD, 5.47; 95% CI, 3.11-7.83; I2 = 53%). The treatment-related AEs did not differ between combination therapy and monotherapy (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.66-1.85; I2 = 78%). Despite multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the levels of heterogeneity remained high. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that combination therapy of PDE5 inhibitors and antioxidants was associated with improved ED without increasing the AEs. Treatment with PDE5 inhibitors and daily tadalafil, shockwaves, or a vacuum device was associated with additional improvement, but this result was based on limited data. These findings suggest that combination therapy is safe, associated with improved outcomes, and should be considered as a first-line therapy for refractory, complex, or difficult-to-treat cases of ED.