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.

Trends in the use of radiation protection and radiation exposure of European endourologists: a prospective trial from the EULIS-YAU Endourology Group.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the radiation exposure for the urology staff during endourology, our aim was to evaluate the trends of radiation protection in the operation room by endourologists from European centers and to estimate their annual radiation. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study involving experienced endourologists from different European centers to evaluate whether the protection and threshold doses recommended by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) were being followed. A 36-question survey was completed on the use of fluoroscopy and radiation protection. Annual prospective data from chest, extremities, and eye dosimeters were collected during a 4-year period (2017-2020). RESULTS: Ten endourologists participated. Most surgeons use lead aprons and thyroid shield (9/10 and 10/10), while leaded gloves and caps are rarely used (2/10 both). Six out of ten surgeons wear leaded glasses. There is widespread use of personal chest dosimeters under the apron (9/10), and only 5/10 use a wrist or ring dosimeter and 4 use an eye dosimeter. Two endourologists use the ALARA protocol. The use of ultrasound and fluoroscopy during PCNL puncture was reported by 8 surgeons. The mean number of PCNL and URS per year was 30.9 (SD 19.9) and 147 (SD 151.9). The mean chest radiation was 1.35 mSv per year and 0.007 mSv per procedure. Mean radiation exposure per year in the eyes and extremities was 1.63 and 11.5 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: Endourologists did not exceed the threshold doses for radiation exposure to the chest, extremities and lens. Furthermore, the ALARA protocol manages to reduce radiation exposure.

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.

The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP-tool): a Delphi consensus project on standardised evaluation of flexible ureterorenoscopes.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a standardised tool to evaluate flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-stage consensus building approach based on the modified Delphi technique was performed under guidance of a steering group. First, scope- and user-related parameters used to evaluate fURS were identified through a systematic scoping review. Then, the main categories and subcategories were defined, and the expert panel was selected. Finally, a two-step modified Delphi consensus project was conducted to firstly obtain consensus on the relevance and exact definition of each (sub)category necessary to evaluate fURS, and secondly on the evaluation method (setting, used tools and unit of outcome) of those (sub)categories. Consensus was reached at a predefined threshold of 80% high agreement. RESULTS: The panel consisted of 30 experts in the field of endourology. The first step of the modified Delphi consensus project consisted of two questionnaires with a response rate of 97% (n = 29) for both. Consensus was reached for the relevance and definition of six main categories and 12 subcategories. The second step consisted of three questionnaires (response rate of 90%, 97% and 100%, respectively). Consensus was reached on the method of measurement for all (sub)categories. CONCLUSION: This modified Delphi consensus project reached consensus on a standardised grading tool for the evaluation of fURS - The Uniform grading tooL for flexIble ureterorenoscoPes (TULIP) tool. This is a first step in creating uniformity in this field of research to facilitate future comparison of outcomes of the functionality and handling of fURS.

Tissue thermal effect during lithotripsy and tissue ablation in endourology: a systematic review of experimental studies comparing Holmium and Thulium lasers.

PURPOSE: We looked into the Thulium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (TM:YAG), Thulium Fibre laser (TFL) and Holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) thermal laser tissue effect during lithotripsy and tissue ablation. METHODS: We performed a PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) search. RESULTS: During lithotripsy, the Ho:YAG generated temperatures from 24 to 68.7 °C at powers < 20 W, the Tm:YAG from 43.7 °C at 30 W to 68 °C at powers < 20 W, and the TFL from 33 to 40.46 °C. During ablation, the Ho:YAG and continuous wave (cw) Tm:YAG tissue incision depths ranged from 0.08 to 2.26 mm, and from 0.28 to 3.22 mm. The Ho:YAG and Tm:YAG vaporization areas ranged from 0.044 to 0.078 mm2 and from 0.050 to 0.078 mm3 and their coagulation zones were 0.075 mm2 and 0.125 mm3 respectively. Ho:YAG and Tm:YAG laser damage zones ranged from 0.093 to 2.6 mm3 and from 0.207 to 0.98 mm3 respectively. The TFL incision depth ranged from 0.04 to 5.7 mm. The cw and SuperPulsed (SP) vaporization volumes ranged from 8 to 28.2 mm3/s and from 4 to 11 mm3/s. TFL coagulation depth and coagulation zone ranged from zero to 1.1 mm, 2.2 to 5.1 mm3 in SP mode and from 7.7 to 18.1 mm3 in cw mode. CONCLUSION: During lithotripsy all lasers caused similar temperature changes and had a safe temperature profile at < 40 W. During tissue ablation, Ho:YAG has a deeper incision depth, while cwTm:YAG and cwTFL have broader coagulation and total laser areas.

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.

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.

Generated temperatures and thermal laser damage during upper tract endourological procedures using the holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser: a systematic review of experimental studies.

PURPOSE: To perform a review on the latest evidence related to generated temperatures during Ho:YAG laser use, and present different tools to maintain decreased values, and minimize complication rates during endourological procedures. METHODS: We performed a literature search using PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL, restricted to original English-written articles, including animal, artificial model, and human studies. Different keywords were URS, RIRS, ureteroscopy, percutaneous, PCNL, and laser. RESULTS: Thermal dose (t43) is an acceptable tool to assess possible thermal damage using the generated temperature and the time of laser exposure. A t43 value of more than 120 min leads to a high risk of thermal tissue injury and at temperatures higher than 43 °C Ho:YAG laser use becomes hazardous due to an exponentially increased cytotoxic effect. Using open continuous flow, or chilled irrigation, temperatures remain lower than 45 °C. By utilizing high-power (> 40 W) or shorter laser pulse, temperatures rise above the accepted threshold, but adding a ureteral access sheath (UAS) helps to maintain acceptable values. CONCLUSIONS: Open irrigation systems, chilled irrigation, UASs, laser power < 40 W, and shorter on/off laser activation intervals help to keep intrarenal temperatures at accepted values during URS and PCNL.

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.

Evaluation of intrarenal pressure stability at different lithotripter suction settings in a porcine kidney model.

PURPOSE: Using the Swiss LithoClast® Trilogy, urinary stones can be fragmented and removed simultaneously by suction at different selectable suction settings. The aim was to evaluate pressure stability at different settings and test stone fragmentation and suction at the optimal settings. METHODS: In an ex vivo porcine kidney model, we recorded intrarenal pressure levels with different suction levels. Storz® Nephroscopes MIP-M and MIP-L and Swiss LithoClast® Trilogy probes were used. RESULTS: Pressure stabilized at 19 cm H2O with the MIP-M at 1 m gravity irrigation with no instrument introduced. After inserting the 1.5 mm probe, the pressure dropped to 5 cm H2O. With a suction setting of 10%, the pressure stabilized at 3 cm H2O and remained stable for the maximum time of 120 s. After increasing the suction to 20, 30, 40, and 50%, we recorded the pressure drop time to 0 after 22, 14, 11, and 8 s. Using the MIP-L, pressure stabilized at 44 cm H2O and decreased to 8 cm H2O after inserting the 3.4 mm probe. With 10% suction, a pressure stabilization was measured at 2 cm H2O and remained stable for 120 s. At suction levels of 20 and 30%, the pressure drop time to 0 was 6 and 5 s. With a 10% suction, removing stones was efficient, and the kidney's filling volume was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: When using the LithoClast® Trilogy, a suction setting of 10% seems to be optimal for the treatment of urinary calculi when applying suction continuously.

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.

Comparison of stone elimination capacity and drilling speed of endoscopic clearance lithotripsy devices.

PURPOSE: To investigate the fragmentation capacity, clearance time, and drilling speed of combined ultrasonic with impact dual-energy and single energy ultrasonic lithotripter devices. METHODS: Stone fragmentation and clearance tests were performed under direct view in an underwater layered hemisphere by four different operators using artificial stones (n = 10/operator). Time for complete clearance was measured. Drilling tests were performed using an underwater setup, consisting of a mounting rack for fixing the lithotripter handpiece with the probe in vertical position and in contact with the stone phantom placed on one side of a balance for defined and constant contact application pressure equivalent to 450 g load. Time until complete perforation or in case of no perforation, the penetration depth after 60 s into the stone sample was recorded. Four devices, one single energy device (SED), one dual-energy dual probe (DEDP), two dual-energy single probe (DESP-1, DESP-2), with different parameters were tested. RESULTS: Stone fragmentation and clearance speed were significantly faster for dual-energy device DESP-1 compared to all other devices (p < 0.001). Using DESP-1, the clearance time needed was 26.0 ± 5.0 s followed by DESP-2, SED and DEDP requiring 38.4 ± 5.8 s, 40.1 ± 6.3 s and 46.3 ± 11.6 s, respectively. Regarding the drilling speed, DESP-1 was faster compared to all other devices used (p < 0.05). While the drilling speed of DESP-1 was 0.69 ± 0.19 mm/s, compared to 0.49 ± 0.18 mm/s of DESP-2, 0.47 ± 0.09 mm/s of DEDP, and 0.19 ± 0.03 mm/s of SED. CONCLUSIONS: The dual-energy/single-probe device combining ultrasonic vibrations with electromechanical impact was significantly faster in fragmentation and clearing stone phantoms as well as in drilling speed compared to all other devices.

Role of Intrarenal Pressure in Modern Day Endourology (Mini-PCNL and Flexible URS): a Systematic Review of Literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the latest evidence about intrarenal pressures (IRPs) generated during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) and mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) and present tools and techniques to maintain decreased values. RECENT FINDING: fURS and PCNL constitute the primary means of stone treatment. New flexible ureterorenoscopes with small diameter and miniaturized PCNL instruments achieve optimal stone-free rates (SFRs) while decreasing invasiveness and morbidity. Nevertheless, endourologists must remain cognizant regarding the dangers of increased IRPs to avoid complications. Current research presents essential information for urologists regarding this topic. During fURS, using a ureteral access sheath (UAS), we avoid extremely high IRPs with all irrigation types. During mPCNL, pressure remains low, mainly using the purging effect or a vacuum-assisted sheath. Devices of intraoperative IRP measurement and intelligent pressure control have proven their feasibility, accuracy and efficacy. These will have an increasing role to play in the future management of stone disease.

Pressure matters 2: intrarenal pressure ranges during upper-tract endourological procedures.

PURPOSE: To perform a review on the latest evidence related to intrarenal pressures (IRPs) generated during upper-tract endourology, and present different tools to maintain decreased values, to decrease complication rates. METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, restricted to original English-written articles, including animal, artificial model and human studies. Different keywords were: percutaneous nephrolithotomy, PCNL, ureteroscopy, URS, RIRS, irrigation flow, irrigation pressure, intrarenal pressure, intrapelvic pressure and renal-pelvic pressure. RESULTS: IRPs reported during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), PCNL, miniPCNL, and microPCNL range 40.8-199.35, 3-40.8, 10-45 and 15.37-41.21 cm H2O, respectively. By utilizing ureteral access sheaths (UASs) IRPs usually remain lower than 30 cm H2O at an irrigation pressure (IP) of ≤ 100 cm H2O but could increase to > 40 cm H2O at an IP of 200 cm H2O. By utilizing the minimally invasive PCNL system, IRPs remain low at 20 cm H2O even at high IPs. Utilizing endoluminal isoproterenol during RIRS, could reduce IRP increases with a rate of 27-107%, and maintain low IRPs values, usually below 50 cm H2O. CONCLUSIONS: Increased IRP values have been reported during RIRS and UASs constitute the most efficient tool for decreasing them. IRPs during mini-PCNL can be decreased utilizing the vacuum-cleaner and purging effects but might remain uncontrolled during micro- and ultra-mini PCNL. Intraluminal pharmacological treatment could play a role in IRP decrease, with isoproterenol being the most studied agent.

Pressure matters: intrarenal pressures during normal and pathological conditions, and impact of increased values to renal physiology.

PURPOSE: To perform a review on the latest evidence related to normal and pathological intrarenal pressures (IRPs), complications of incremented values, and IRP ranges during endourology. METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, restricted to original English-written articles, including animal, artificial model, and human studies. Different keywords were: percutaneous nephrolithotomy, PCNL, ureteroscopy, URS, RIRS, irrigation flow, irrigation pressure, intrarenal pressure, intrapelvic pressure and renal pelvic pressure. RESULTS: Normal IRPs range from zero to a few cm H2O. Pyelovenous backflow may occur at pressure range of 13.6-27.2 cm H2O. During upper tract endourology, complications such as pyelorenal backflow, sepsis, and renal damage are directly related to increased IRPs. Duration of increased IRPs and concomitant obstruction are independent predictors of complication development. CONCLUSIONS: IRP increase remains a neglected predictor of upper tract endourology complications and its intraoperative monitoring should be taken into consideration. Further research is necessary, to quantify pressures generated during upper tract endourology, and introduce means of controlling them.

Comparison of multiparametric and biparametric MRI of the prostate: are gadolinium-based contrast agents needed for routine examinations?

PURPOSE: To investigate, if and how omitting gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) influences diagnostic accuracy and tumor detection rates of prostate MRI. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 236 patients were included. The results of biparametric (bpMRI) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) were compared using the PI-RADS version 2 scoring system. The distribution of lesions to PIRADS score levels, tumor detection rates, diagnostic accuracy and RoC analysis were calculated and compared to the results of histopathological analysis or 5-year follow-up for benign findings. RESULTS: Omitting DCE changed PI-RADS scores in 9.75% of patients, increasing the number of PI-RADS 3 scores by 8.89% when compared to mpMRI. No change of more than one score level was observed. BpMRI did not show significant differences in diagnostic accuracy or tumor detection rates. (AuC of 0.914 vs 0.917 in ROC analysis). Of 135 prostate carcinomas (PCa), 94.07% were scored identically, and 5.93% were downgraded only from PI-RADS 4 to PI-RADS 3 by bpMRI. All of them were low-grade PCa with Gleason Score 6 or 7a. No changes were observed for PCa ≥ 7b. CONCLUSION: Omitting DCE did not lead to significant differences in diagnostic accuracy or tumor detection rates when using the PI-RADS 2 scoring system. According to these data, it seems reasonable to use a biparametric approach for initial routine prostate MRI. This could decrease examination time and reduce costs without significantly lowering the diagnostic accuracy.

Laparoscopic single-incision triangulated umbilical surgery (SITUS) pyeloplasty: a description of the first 32 cases.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Transumbilical laparoendoscopic (LESS) procedures reduce access trauma. Laparoendocopic single-incision triangulated umbilical surgery (SITUS) utilizes straight instruments in a triangulated fashion, via three trocars placed through a single umbilical incision. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive patients underwent an SITUS pyeloplasty. Access is performed by incision of the umbilical fold by 3/4 of its circumference, a 5-mm camera port, and consequently, cranial and caudal 3 or 5 mm working trocars are placed at a distance of 3-6 cm, thus allowing triangulation. SITUS laparoscopy utilizes the standard straight instruments with a length of 43 cm. RESULTS: All procedures were successfully performed and no conversion to open, or conventional laparoscopic approach was deemed necessary. Thirty patients underwent a dismembered and two a Fenger pyeloplasty. A crossing vessel was identified in 68.75% of the cases. The median laparoscopic and suturing times were 130 and 30 min, respectively; median blood loss was 50 ml. The median duration of hospitalization was 4 days. The visual analogue scores (VAS) reported were 1 on the first and 0 on the third postoperative day. The indwelling double-J or mono-J stents were removed after a median time of 5 weeks and 4 days, respectively. The overall success rate was 96.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The SITUS technique for pyeloplasty is an attractive alternative to conventional laparoscopy and a viable competitor to LESS surgery. It combines the common principles of traditional laparoscopy, such as conventional instrumentation and triangulation, with the benefits of single-port surgery.

Retrospective analysis of the development of PIRADS 3 lesions over time: when is a follow-up MRI reasonable?

PURPOSE: Often PIRADS 3 findings are usually followed up with further MRIs of the prostate. Current guidelines do not state an optimal interval between the initial MRI and the follow-up MRI. The aim of this study was to find out if PIRADS 3 lesions evolve over time and to determine how long the optimal interval between initial MRI and follow-ups should be. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 141 consecutive patients were included who underwent at least one follow-up MRI after an initial PIRADS 3 finding. Changes in PIRADS score and the interval between the first and the follow-up MRI were recorded. An optimal duration was calculated. RESULTS: Of all patients, 76.6% had a change from PIRADS 3 to either 2 or 4 in the first follow-up MRI. Reclassifications to PIRADS 4 happened earlier than reclassifications to PIRADS 2 (after 366.5 ± 217.9 days and after 534.2 ± 253.0 days, respectively). An optimal point of time for a follow-up to distinguish between changes to PIRADS 2 versus PIRADS 4 turned out to be 379 days (12.4 months, AUC 0.734, p = 0.0001). Of all patients with a PIRADS 3 lesion 14.8% harboured a prostate carcinoma. CONCLUSION: Performing follow-up mpMRI rather than immediate biopsy may be beneficial for patients with PIRADS 3, as most lesions can be reclassified after a manageable period of time. Upgrades to PIRADS 4 seem to happen earlier and within fewer follow-ups than downgrades to PIRADS 2. The optimal interval for follow-up MRIs seems to be 12.4 months.