Removal of Small, Asymptomatic Kidney Stones and Incidence of Relapse.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of removing small (≤6 mm), asymptomatic kidney stones endoscopically is unknown. Current guidelines leave such decisions to the urologist and the patient. A prospective study involving older, nonendoscopic technology and some retrospective studies favor observation. However, published data indicate that about half of small renal stones left in place at the time that larger stones were removed caused other symptomatic events within 5 years after surgery. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in which, during the endoscopic removal of ureteral or contralateral kidney stones, remaining small, asymptomatic stones were removed in 38 patients (treatment group) and were not removed in 35 patients (control group). The primary outcome was relapse as measured by future emergency department visits, surgeries, or growth of secondary stones. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the treatment group had a longer time to relapse than the control group (P<0.001 by log-rank test). The restricted mean (±SE) time to relapse was 75% longer in the treatment group than in the control group (1631.6±72.8 days vs. 934.2±121.8 days). The risk of relapse was 82% lower in the treatment group than the control group (hazard ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.44), with 16% of patients in the treatment group having a relapse as compared with 63% of those in the control group. Treatment added a median of 25.6 minutes (interquartile range, 18.5 to 35.2) to the surgery time. Five patients in the treatment group and four in the control group had emergency department visits within 2 weeks after surgery. Eight patients in the treatment group and 10 in the control group reported passing kidney stones. CONCLUSIONS: The removal of small, asymptomatic kidney stones during surgery to remove ureteral or contralateral kidney stones resulted in a lower incidence of relapse than nonremoval and in a similar number of emergency department visits related to the surgery. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02210650.).

Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of Pain Before and After Removal of Nonobstructing Renal Calculi: A CoRE Initiative.

PURPOSE: Flank pain associated with stone disease is typically caused by a stone that obstructs urine flow. However, it is plausible that nonobstructing kidney stones may still cause pain. We performed a multicenter, observational trial to evaluate whether treatment of small nonobstructing calyceal stones improves pain and kidney stone-specific health-related quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or older with nonobstructing renal stone(s) up to 10 mm in longest diameter and moderate to severe pain were recruited. All participants completed 3 questionnaires: the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain interference form 6a, and the Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life questionnaire. Thereafter, all participants underwent ureteroscopy for renal stone treatment. All 3 questionnaires were repeated at 2, 6 to 8, and at 12 weeks postprocedure. The primary outcomes were change in preoperative to 12-week postoperative mean BPI score and worst BPI pain score. RESULTS: A total of 43 patients with nonobstructing kidney stones and associated flank pain were recruited. All stones were removed. Preoperatively, BPI scores for mean pain and worst pain were 5.5 and 7.2, respectively which decreased to 1.8 and 2.8 respectively at 12 weeks postoperatively. Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life questionnaire mean score increased from 70.4 to 115.3 at 12 weeks postoperatively. A total of 86% and 69% of patients had at least a 20% and 50% reduction in their mean pain scores, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study determined that patients benefit significantly from the removal of calyceal nonobstructing kidney stones for at least 12 weeks with a reduction in pain and an increase in quality of life. Therefore, surgical removal of these stones in this patient population should be offered as a treatment option.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones: a Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of renal stones in adults. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings up to 23 March 2023. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status. Screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and certainty of evidence (CoE) rating using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach were done in duplicate by two independent reviewers. This co-publication focuses on the primary outcomes of this review only. RESULTS: We included 42 trials that met the inclusion criteria. Stone-free rate (SFR): PCNL may improve SFRs (risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.18; I2 = 71%; 39 studies, 4088 participants; low CoE). Major complications: PCNL probably has little to no effect on major complications (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59-1.25; I2 = 15%; 34 studies, 3649; participants; moderate CoE) compared to RIRS. Need for secondary interventions: PCNL may reduce the need for secondary interventions (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17-0.55; I2 = 61%; 21 studies, 2005 participants; low CoE) compared to RIRS. CONCLUSION: Despite shortcomings in most studies that lowered our certainty in the estimates of effect to mostly very low or low, we found that PCNL may improve SFRs and reduce the need for secondary interventions while not impacting major complications. Ureteric stricture rates may be similar compared to RIRS. We expect the findings of this review to be helpful for shared decision-making about management choices for individuals with renal stones.

Tranexamic acid for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an abridged Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of tranexamic acid (TXA) in individuals with kidney stones undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a literature search of Cochrane Library, PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, Global Index Medicus, trials registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with PCNL with administration of TXA to placebo (or no TXA) for patients aged ≥18 years. Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. Primary outcomes were blood transfusion, stone-free rate (SFR), thromboembolic events (TEE). We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach using a minimally contextualised approach with pre-defined thresholds for minimally clinically important differences (MCID). RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs assessing the effect of systemic TXA in PCNL vs placebo (or no TXA). Eight studies were published as full text. Based on an adjusted baseline risk of blood transfusion of 5.7%, systemic TXA may reduce blood transfusions (risk ratio [RR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.76). Based on an adjusted baseline SFR of 75.7%, systemic TXA may increase SFR (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98-1.27). There is probably no difference in TEEs (risk difference 0.001, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01). Systemic TXA may increase adverse events (AEs) (RR 5.22, 95% CI 0.52-52.72). Systemic TXA may have little to no effect on secondary interventions (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84-1.57). The CoE for most outcomes was assessed as low or very low. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a body of evidence of 10 RCTs, we found that systemic TXA in PCNL may reduce blood transfusions, major surgical complications, and hospital length of stay, as well as improve the SFR; however, it may increase AEs. These findings should inform urologists and their patients in making informed decisions about the use of TXA in the setting of PCNL.

Prostatic arterial embolisation for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE) compared to other procedures for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomised studies (NRSs) enrolling men with BPH undergoing PAE vs other surgical interventions via a comprehensive search up until 8 November 2021. Two independent reviewers screened the literature, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model, and rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) of RCTs and NRSs. RESULTS: We found data to inform two comparisons: PAE vs transurethral resection of prostate (TURP; six RCTs and two NRSs), and PAE vs sham (one RCT). This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes in a comparison of PAE vs TURP. Short-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, there may be little to no difference in urological symptom score improvement (mean difference [MD] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.37 to 3.81; low CoE) and quality of life (QoL; MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.84; low CoE) measured by International Prostatic Symptom Score. We are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on major adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.19-2.97; very low CoE). Long-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, PAE may result in little to no difference in urological symptom scores (MD 2.58, 95% CI -1.54 to 6.71; low CoE) and QoL (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.03 to 1.04; low CoE). We are very uncertain about major adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.20-4.05; very low CoE). CONCLUSION: Compared to TURP, the impact on urological symptoms and QoL improvement as perceived by patients appears to be similar. This review did reveal major uncertainty as to how major adverse events compare.

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.

Development of a burst wave lithotripsy system for noninvasive fragmentation of ureteroliths in pet cats.

BACKGROUND: Upper urinary tract stones are increasingly prevalent in pet cats and are difficult to manage. Surgical procedures to address obstructing ureteroliths have short- and long-term complications, and medical therapies (e.g., fluid diuresis and smooth muscle relaxants) are infrequently effective. Burst wave lithotripsy is a non-invasive, ultrasound-guided, handheld focused ultrasound technology to disintegrate urinary stones, which is now undergoing human clinical trials in awake unanesthetized subjects. RESULTS: In this study, we designed and performed in vitro testing of a modified burst wave lithotripsy system to noninvasively fragment stones in cats. The design accounted for differences in anatomic scale, acoustic window, skin-to-stone depth, and stone size. Prototypes were fabricated and tested in a benchtop model using 35 natural calcium oxalate monohydrate stones from cats. In an initial experiment, burst wave lithotripsy was performed using peak ultrasound pressures of 7.3 (n = 10), 8.0 (n = 5), or 8.9 MPa (n = 10) for up to 30 min. Fourteen of 25 stones fragmented to < 1 mm within the 30 min. In a second experiment, burst wave lithotripsy was performed using a second transducer and peak ultrasound pressure of 8.0 MPa (n = 10) for up to 50 min. In the second experiment, 9 of 10 stones fragmented to < 1 mm within the 50 min. Across both experiments, an average of 73-97% of stone mass could be reduced to fragments < 1 mm. A third experiment found negligible injury with in vivo exposure of kidneys and ureters in a porcine animal model. CONCLUSIONS: These data support further evaluation of burst wave lithotripsy as a noninvasive intervention for obstructing ureteroliths in cats.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones in adults.

BACKGROUND: Kidney stones (also called renal stones) can be a source of pain, obstruction, and infection. Depending on size, location, composition, and other patient factors, the treatment of kidney stones can involve observation, shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS; i.e. ureteroscopic approaches), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or a combination of these approaches. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of renal stones in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and two trials registries up to 23 March 2023. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated PCNL (grouped by access size in French gauge [Fr] into three groups: ≥ 24 Fr [standard PCNL], 15-23 Fr [mini-PCNL and minimally invasive PCNL], and < 15 Fr [ultra-mini-, mini-micro-, super-mini-, and micro-PCNL]) versus RIRS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data from the included studies. Our primary outcomes were stone-free rate, major complications, and need for secondary interventions. Our main secondary outcomes were unplanned medical visits to emergency/urgent care or outpatient clinic, length of hospital stay, ureteral stricture or injury, and quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE criteria. We adopted a minimally contextualized approach with predefined thresholds for minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 trials assessing the effects of PCNL versus RIRS in 4571 randomized participants. Twenty-two studies were published as full-text articles, and 20 were published as abstract proceedings. The average size of stones ranged from 10.1 mm to 39.1 mm. Most studies did not report sources of funding or conflicts of interest. The main results for the most important outcomes are summarized below. Stone-free rate PCNL compared with RIRS may improve stone-free rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08 to 1.18; I2 = 71%; 39 studies, 4088 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 770 participants per 1000 being stone-free with RIRS, this corresponds to 100 more (62 more to 139 more) stone-free participants per 1000 with PCNL (an absolute difference of 10%, where the predefined MCID was 5%). Major complications PCNL compared with RIRS probably has little or no effect on major complications (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25; I2 = 15%; 34 studies, 3649 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on 31 complications in the RIRS group, this corresponds to six fewer (13 fewer to six more) major complications per 1000 with PCNL (an absolute difference of 0.6%, where the predefined MCID was 2%). Need for secondary interventions PCNL compared with RIRS may reduce the need for secondary interventions (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55; I2 = 61%; 21 studies, 2005 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 222 secondary interventions in the RIRS group, this corresponds to 153 fewer (185 fewer to 100 fewer) secondary interventions per 1000 with PCNL (an absolute difference of 15.3%, where the predefined MCID was 5%). Unplanned medical visits No studies reported unplanned medical visits. Length of hospital stay PCNL compared with RIRS may extend length of hospital stay (mean difference 1.04 days more, 95% CI 0.27 more to 1.81 more; I2 = 100%; 26 studies, 2804 participants; low-certainty evidence). This effect size is greater than the predefined MCID of one day. Ureteral stricture or injury PCNL compared with RIRS may have little or no effect on the occurrence of ureteral strictures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.21; I2 = 0%; 13 studies, 1574 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 14 ureteral strictures in the RIRS group, this corresponds to one fewer (nine fewer to 17 more) ureteral strictures per 1000 with PCNL (an absolute difference of 0.1%, where the predefined MCID was 2%). Quality of life No studies reported quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on a large body of evidence from 42 trials, we found that PCNL compared with RIRS may improve stone-free rates and may reduce the need for secondary interventions, but probably has little or no effect on major complications. PCNL compared with RIRS may have little or no effect on ureteral stricture rates and may increase length of hospital stay. We found no evidence on unplanned medical visits or participant quality of life. Because of the considerable shortcomings of the included trials, the evidence for most outcomes was of low certainty. Access size for PCNL was less than 24 Fr in most studies that provided this information. We expect the findings of this review to be helpful for shared decision-making about management choices for individuals with renal stones.

Tranexamic acid for percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the gold standard for the treatment of large kidney stones but comes with an increased risk of bleeding compared to other treatments, such as ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent that has been used to reduce bleeding complications in other settings. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of TXA in individuals with kidney stones undergoing PCNL. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, Global Index Medicus, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings. We applied no restrictions on the language of publication nor publication status. The latest search date was 11 May 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with PCNL with administration of TXA to placebo (or no TXA) for patients ≥ 18 years old. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. Primary outcomes were: blood transfusion, stone-free rate (SFR), and thromboembolic events (TEEs). Secondary outcomes were: adverse events (AEs), secondary interventions, major surgical complications, minor surgical complications, unplanned hospitalizations or readmissions, and hospital length of stay (LOS). We performed statistical analyzes using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach using a minimally contextualized approach with predefined thresholds for minimally clinically important differences (MCIDs). MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 10 RCTs assessing the effect of systemic TXA in PCNL versus placebo (or no TXA) with 1883 randomized participants. Eight studies were published as full text. One was published in abstract proceedings, but it was separated into two separate studies for the purpose of our analyzes. Average stone surface area ranged 3.45 to 6.62 cm2. We also found a single RCT published in full text assessing the effects of topical TXA in PCNL versus placebo (or no TXA) with 400 randomized participants, the results of which are further described in the review. Here we focus only on the results of TXA used systemically. Blood transfusion - Based on a representative baseline risk of 5.7% for blood transfusions taken from a large presentative observational studies, systemic TXA may reduce blood transfusions (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.76; I2 = 28%; 9 studies, 1353 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Based on 57 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) being transfused, this corresponds to 31 fewer (from 42 fewer to 14 fewer) participants being transfused per 1000. Stone-free rate - Based on a representative baseline risk of 75.7% for SFR, systemic TXA may increase SFRs (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; I2 = 62%; 4 studies, 603 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 757 participants per 1000 being stone free with placebo (or no TXA), this corresponds to 83 more (from 15 fewer to 204 more) stone-free participants per 1000. Thromboembolic events - There is probably no difference in TEEs (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 841 participants; moderate CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Since there were no thromboembolic events in intervention and/or control groups in 5 out of6 studies, we opted to assess a risk difference with systemic TXA for this outcome. Adverse events - Systemic TXA may increase AEs (RR 5.22, 95% CI 0.52 to 52.72; I2 = 75%; 4 studies, 602 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 23 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having an adverse event, this corresponds to 98 more (from 11 fewer to 1000 more) participants with adverse events per 1000. Secondary interventions - Systemic TXA may have little to no effect on secondary interventions (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.57; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 319 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 278 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having a secondary intervention, this corresponds to 42 more (from 44 fewer to 158 more) participants with secondary interventions per 1000. Major surgical complications - Based on a representative baseline risk for major surgical complications of 4.1%, systemic TXA may reduce major surgical complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 733 participants; moderate CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Based on 41 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having a major surgical complication, this corresponds to 26 fewer (from 32 fewer to 16 fewer) participants with major surgical complications per 1000. Minor surgical complications - Systemic TXA may reduce minor surgical complications (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; I2 = 76%; 5 studies, 733 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 396 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having a minor surgical complication, this corresponds to 115 fewer (from 218 fewer to 40 more) participants with minor surgical complications per 1000. Unplanned hospitalizations or readmissions - We are very uncertain how unplanned hospitalizations or readmissions are affected (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.31; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 189 participants; very low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Hospital length of stay - Systemic TXA may reduce hospital LOS (mean difference 0.52 days lower, 95% CI 0.93 lower to 0.11 lower; I2 = 98%; 7 studies, 1151 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 0.5 days. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on 10 RCTs with substantial methodological limitations that lowered all CoE of effect, we found that systemic TXA in PCNL may reduce blood transfusions, major and minor surgical complications, and hospital LOS, as well as improve SFRs; however, it may increase AEs. We are uncertain about the effects of systemic TXA on other outcomes. Findings of this review should assist urologists and their patients in making informed decisions about the use of TXA in the setting of PCNL.

Minimally invasive treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a Cochrane network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative effectiveness and ranking of minimally invasive treatments (MITs) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched multiple databases up to 24 February 2021. We included randomized controlled trials assessing the following treatments: convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy (WVTT; or Rezum); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL; or Urolift); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) compared to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or sham surgery. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 27 trials involving 3017 men. The overall certainty of the evidence of most outcomes according to GRADE was low to very low. Compared to TURP, we found that PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urological symptoms, while WVTT, TUMT and TIND may result in worse urological symptoms. MITs may result in little to no difference in quality of life, compared to TURP. MITs may result in a large reduction in major adverse events compared to TURP. We were uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP, however, TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates. We were very uncertain of the effects of MITs on erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among MITs, PUL and PAE had the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and quality of life, TUMT for major adverse events, WVTT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function. Excluding WVTT and TIND, for which there were only studies with short-term (3-month) follow-up, PUL had the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for retreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and quality of life compared to TURP at short-term follow-up.

Association of stone surgery with patient-reported complications after spinal cord injury.

AIMS: To determine if a history of urinary stone surgery in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with an increased incidence of SCI-related complications and lower quality of life (QOL). METHODS: The Neurogenic Bladder Research Group (NBRG) registry is a multicenter, prospective, observational study which measures QOL after acquired SCI. Over 1.5 years, 1479 participants were enrolled and grouped according to history of stone surgery. We evaluated SCI-related complications, QOL, and associations between patient factors and prior stone surgery using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Participants were a median of 11 years post-SCI and 189 (12.8%) reported prior bladder or kidney stone surgery; 95.8% of these occurred after the SCI. Median time between SCI and first stone was 5.6 years (IQR: 1.8-12.8). Hospitalizations were higher for those with prior stone surgery, with common reasons including UTIs, blood clots, pressure ulcers, and pneumonia (p < 0.001). During the year of observation, the incidence of stone surgery was 17% in those with a prior history of stone surgery and 2% per year in those without prior stone surgery (p < 0.001). Controlling for covariates, bladder management strategy, age, BMI, and years since SCI were associated with history of stone surgery. CONCLUSIONS: People with SCI and a history of surgical stone disease are at high risk for episodes of recurrent stones and increased hospitalizations, particularly those with kidney stones and indwelling catheter use. Identification of high-risk patients may guide tailored surveillance for complications and stone prevention strategies.

Prostatic arterial embolization for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) is a relatively new, minimally invasive treatment approach. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of PAE compared to other procedures for treatment of LUTS in men with BPH. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on language of publication or publication status, up to 8 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomized studies (NRS, limited to prospective cohort studies with concurrent comparison groups) enrolling men over the age of 40 years with LUTS attributed to BPH undergoing PAE versus TURP or other surgical interventions.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence of RCTs and NRSs.  MAIN RESULTS: We found data to inform two comparisons: PAE versus TURP (six RCTs and two NRSs), and PAE versus sham (one RCT). Mean age was 66 years, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 22.8, and prostate volume of participants was 72.8 mL. This abstract focuses on the comparison of PAE versus TURP as the primary topic of interest. Prostatic arterial embolization versus transurethral resection of the prostate We included six RCTs and two NRSs with short-term (up to 12 months) follow-up, and two RCTs and one NRS with long-term follow-up (13 to 24 months).  Short-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, there may be little to no difference in urologic symptom score improvement measured by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) on a scale from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms (mean difference [MD] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.37 to 3.81; 6 RCTs, 360 participants; I² = 78%; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in quality of life as measured by the IPSS-quality of life question on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating worse quality of life between PAE and TURP, respectively (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.84; 5 RCTs, 300 participants; I² = 63%; low-certainty evidence). While we are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on major adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.97; 4 RCTs, 250 participants; I² = 24%; very low-certainty evidence), PAE likely increases retreatments (RR 3.20, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.27; 4 RCTs, 303 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). PAE may make little to no difference in erectile function measured by the International Index of Erectile Function-5 on a scale from 1 to 25, with higher scores indicating better function (MD -0.50 points, 95% CI -5.88 to 4.88; 2 RCTs, 120 participants; I² = 68%; low-certainty evidence). Based on NRS evidence, PAE may reduce the occurrence of ejaculatory disorders (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.73; 1 NRS, 260 participants; low-certainty evidence). Long-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, PAE may result in little to no difference in urologic symptom scores (MD 2.58 points, 95% CI -1.54 to 6.71; 2 RCTs, 176 participants; I² = 73%; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (MD 0.50 points, 95% CI -0.03 to 1.04; 2 RCTs, 176 participants; I² = 29%; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about major adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.05; 2 RCTs, 206 participants; I² = 72%; very low-certainty evidence). PAE likely increases retreatments (RR 3.80, 95% CI 1.32 to 10.93; 1 RCT, 81 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). While PAE may result in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 3.09 points, 95% CI -0.76 to 6.94; 1 RCT, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence), PAE may reduce the occurrence of ejaculatory disorders (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; 1 RCT, 50 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to TURP, PAE may provide similar improvement in urologic symptom scores and quality of life. While we are very uncertain about major adverse events, PAE likely increases retreatment rates. While erectile function may be similar, PAE may reduce ejaculatory disorders. Certainty of evidence for the outcomes of this review was low or very low except for retreatment (moderate-certainty evidence), signaling that our confidence in the reported effect size is limited or very limited, and that this topic should be better informed by future research.

A Randomized Trial Evaluating the Use of a Smart Water Bottle to Increase Fluid Intake in Stone Formers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate if the use of a smart water bottle improves urine volume in stone forming patients. METHODS: Adults with nephrolithiasis and low urine volume (<1.5 L) documented on a 24-hour urinalysis (24 hr U) were randomized to receive either standard dietary recommendations to increase fluid intake (DR arm), or DR and a smart water bottle (HidrateSpark®; Hydrate Inc., Minneapolis, MN) that recorded fluid intake, synced to the user's smartphone, and provided reminders to drink (SB arm). Participants completed baseline surveys assessing barriers to hydration. They then repeated a 24 hr U and survey at 6 and 12 weeks, respectively. RESULTS: Eighty-five subjects (44 DR, 41 SB) were enrolled. The main baseline factor limiting fluid intake was not remembering to drink (60%). Follow-up 24 hr Us were available for 51 patients. The mean increase in volume was greater in the SB arm (1.37 L, 95% confidence interval -0.51 to 3.25) than the DR arm (0.79 L, 95% confidence interval -1.15 to 2.73) (P = .04). A smaller percentage of subjects in the SB arm reported not remembering to drink as the main factor limiting fluid intake in the follow-up questionnaire compared to baseline (45.4% vs. 68.4%, P < .05). This was not true for the DR arm (40.0% vs. 51.2%, P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: Difficulty remembering to drink is a barrier to achieving sufficient fluid intake in stone formers. The use of a smart bottle was associated with greater increases in 24 hr U volumes and less difficulty remembering to drink.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate using Moses 2.0 vs non-Moses: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the enucleation efficiency of Moses 2.0 with non-Moses technology in patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A double-blinded, randomised study of patients undergoing HoLEP at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, using the Lumenis Pulse™ 120H laser system. Patients were randomised to either right lobe enucleation using Moses 2.0 and left lobe enucleation using non-Moses, or the opposite. The primary outcome was individual lobe enucleation efficiency. Secondary outcomes included individual lobe laser time, laser energy, individual enucleation and haemostasis laser energies, and fibre burn back. Two independent reviewers watched videos of the procedures and provided a subjective evaluation of the technologies. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients were included in the study. For the entire cohort, Moses 2.0 had less fibre degradation (3.5 vs 16.8 mm, P < 0.01) compared to non-Moses. When HoLEP procedures were performed by an expert, Moses 2.0 resulted in shorter enucleation time (21 vs 36.7 min, P = 0.016) and higher enucleation efficiency (1.75 vs 1.05 g/min, P = 0.05) compared to non-Moses. When HoLEP was performed by trainees, the Moses 2.0 cohort had a shorter haemostasis laser time (4.1 vs 9 min, P = 0.035) compared to the non-Moses. Fibre degradation was lower with Moses 2.0 compared to non-Moses for both experts and trainees. Moses 2.0 received a higher score than the standard technology for the incision sharpness, fibre control, tissue separation, tissue damage, haemostasis, visibility, and charring. The overall inter-observer correlation coefficient was 0.63. CONCLUSION: Moses 2.0 has higher enucleation efficiency compared to non-Moses when used by experts. The subjective evaluation favoured Moses 2.0.

Transurethral microwave thermotherapy for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the gold-standard treatment for alleviating urinary symptoms and improving urinary flow in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, the morbidity of TURP approaches 20%, and less invasive techniques have been developed for treating BPH. Transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) is an alternative, minimally-invasive treatment that delivers microwave energy to produce coagulation necrosis in prostatic tissue. This is an update of a review last published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of transurethral microwave thermotherapy for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 31 May 2021, with no restrictions by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of participants with BPH who underwent TUMT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage and undertook data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments of the certainty of the evidence (CoE). We considered review outcomes measured up to 12 months after randomization as short-term and beyond 12 months as long-term. Our main outcomes included: urologic symptoms scores, quality of life, major adverse events, retreatment, and ejaculatory and erectile function. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we identified no new RCTs, but we included data from studies excluded in the previous version of this review. We included 16 trials with 1919 participants, with a median age of 69 and moderate lower urinary tract symptoms. The certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was moderate-to-low, due to an overall high risk of bias across studies and imprecision (few participants and events). TUMT versus TURP Based on data from four studies with 306 participants, when compared to TURP, TUMT probably results in little to no difference in urologic symptom scores measured by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) on a scale from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 2.03; moderate certainty). There is likely to be little to no difference in the quality of life (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.47; 1 study, 136 participants, moderate certainty). TUMT likely results in fewer major adverse events (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43; 6 studies, 525 participants, moderate certainty); based on 168 cases per 1000 men in the TURP group, this corresponds to 135 fewer (153 to 96 fewer) per 1000 men in the TUMT group. TUMT, however, probably results in a large increase in the need for retreatment (risk ratio (RR) 7.07, 95% CI 1.94 to 25.82; 5 studies, 337 participants, moderate certainty) (usually by repeated TUMT or TURP); based on zero cases per 1000 men in the TURP group, this corresponds to 90 more (40 to 150 more) per 1000 men in the TUMT group. There may be little to no difference in erectile function between these interventions (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.63; 5 studies, 337 participants; low certainty). However, TUMT may result in fewer cases of ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.53; 4 studies, 241 participants; low certainty). TUMT versus sham Based on data from four studies with 483 participants we found that, when compared to sham, TUMT probably reduces urologic symptom scores using the IPSS at short-term follow-up (MD -5.40, 95% CI -6.97 to -3.84; moderate certainty). TUMT may cause little to no difference in the quality of life (MD -0.95, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.77; 2 studies, 347 participants; low certainty) as measured by the IPSS quality-of-life question on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating a worse quality of life. We are very uncertain about the effects on major adverse events, since most studies reported no events or isolated lesions of the urinary tract. TUMT may also reduce the need for retreatment compared to sham (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.88; 2 studies, 82 participants, low certainty); based on 194 retreatments per 1000 men in the sham group, this corresponds to 141 fewer (178 to 23 fewer) per 1000 men in the TUMT group. We are very uncertain of the effects on erectile and ejaculatory function (very low certainty), since we found isolated reports of impotence and ejaculatory disorders (anejaculation and hematospermia). There were no data available for the comparisons of TUMT versus convective radiofrequency water vapor therapy, prostatic urethral lift, prostatic arterial embolization or temporary implantable nitinol device. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: TUMT provides a similar reduction in urinary symptoms compared to the standard treatment (TURP), with fewer major adverse events and fewer cases of ejaculatory dysfunction at short-term follow-up. However, TUMT probably results in a large increase in retreatment rates. Study limitations and imprecision reduced the confidence we can place in these results. Furthermore, most studies were performed over 20 years ago. Given the emergence of newer minimally-invasive treatments, high-quality head-to-head trials with longer follow-up are needed to clarify their relative effectiveness. Patients' values and preferences, their comorbidities and the effects of other available minimally-invasive procedures, among other factors, can guide clinicians when choosing the optimal treatment for this condition.

Minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A variety of minimally invasive treatments are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, it is unclear which treatments provide better results. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with BPH through a network meta-analysis. Our secondary objective was to obtain an estimate of relative ranking of these minimally invasive treatments, according to their effects. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 24 February 2021. We had no restrictions on language of publication or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of the following minimally invasive treatments, compared to TURP or sham treatment, on men with moderate to severe LUTS due to BPH: convective radiofrequency water vapor therapy (CRFWVT); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model for pair-wise comparisons and a frequentist network meta-analysis for combined estimates. We interpreted them according to Cochrane methods. We planned subgroup analyses by age, prostate volume, and severity of baseline symptoms. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to express dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs to express continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 trials involving 3017 men, mostly over age 50, with severe LUTS due to BPH. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low due to concerns regarding bias, imprecision, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and incoherence. Based on the network meta-analysis, results for our main outcomes were as follows. Urologic symptoms (19 studies, 1847 participants): PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms scores (MD of International Prostate Symptoms Score [IPSS]) compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD range 0 to 35; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 1.47, 95% CI -4.00 to 6.93; PAE: 1.55, 95% CI -1.23 to 4.33; low-certainty evidence). CRFWVT, TUMT, and TIND may result in worse urologic symptoms scores compared to TURP at short-term follow-up, but the CIs include little to no difference (CRFWVT: 3.6, 95% CI -4.25 to 11.46; TUMT: 3.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 7.10; TIND: 7.5, 95% CI -0.68 to 15.69; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life (QoL) (13 studies, 1459 participants): All interventions may result in little to no difference in the QoL scores, compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD of IPSS-QoL score; MD range 0 to 6; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 0.06, 95% CI -1.17 to 1.30; PAE: 0.09, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.75; CRFWVT: 0.37, 95% CI -1.45 to 2.20; TUMT: 0.65, 95% CI -0.48 to 1.78; TIND: 0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to 2.79; low-certainty evidence). Major adverse events (15 studies, 1573 participants): TUMT probably results in a large reduction of major adverse events compared to TURP (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43; moderate-certainty evidence). PUL, CRFWVT, TIND and PAE may also result in a large reduction in major adverse events, but CIs include substantial benefits and harms at three months to 36 months; PUL: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.22; CRFWVT: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 18.62; TIND: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.01 to 24.46; PAE: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.68; low-certainty evidence). Retreatment (10 studies, 799 participants): We are uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP (12 to 60 months; PUL: RR 2.39, 95% CI 0.51 to 11.1; PAE: RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 15.44; very low-certainty evidence). TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates (RR 9.71, 95% CI 2.35 to 40.13; low-certainty evidence). Erectile function (six studies, 640 participants): We are very uncertain of the effects of minimally invasive treatments on erectile function (MD of International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5]; range 5 to 25; higher scores indicates better function; CRFWVT: 6.49, 95% CI -8.13 to 21.12; TIND: 5.19, 95% CI -9.36 to 19.74; PUL: 3.00, 95% CI -5.45 to 11.44; PAE: -0.03, 95% CI -6.38, 6.32; very low-certainty evidence). Ejaculatory dysfunction (eight studies, 461 participants): We are uncertain of the effects of PUL, PAE and TUMT on ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; PUL: RR 0.05, 95 % CI 0.00 to 1.06; PAE: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92; TUMT: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). TURP is the reference treatment with the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms, QoL and retreatment, but the least favorable in terms of major adverse events, erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among minimally invasive procedures, PUL and PAE have the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and QoL, TUMT for major adverse events, PUL for retreatment, CRFWVT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and QoL compared to TURP at short-term follow-up. They may result in fewer major adverse events, especially in the case of PUL and PAE; resulting in better rankings for symptoms scores. PUL may result in fewer retreatments compared to other interventions, especially TUMT, which had the highest retreatment rates at long-term follow-up. We are very uncertain about the effects of these interventions on erectile function. There was limited long-term data, especially for CRFWVT and TIND. Future high-quality studies with more extended follow-up, comparing different, active treatment modalities, and adequately reporting critical outcomes relevant to patients, including those related to sexual function, could provide more information on the relative effectiveness of these interventions.

Symptomatic renal papillary varicosities and medullary nephrocalcinosis.

BACKGROUND: Nephrocalcinosis is often asymptomatic but can manifest with renal colic or hematuria. There is no reported association between nephrocalcinosis and renal vascular malformations, which may also be a source of hematuria. We herein present a case of a patient with hematuria related to nephrocalcinosis and renal papillary varicosities. These varicosities were diagnosed and successfully treated with flexible ureteroscopy and laser fulguration. CASE PRESENTATION: A 24-year-old female with a history of epilepsy (on zonisamide), recent uncomplicated pregnancy, and new diagnosis of nephrocalcinosis presented with right flank pain and intermittent gross hematuria. Imaging revealed intermittent right sided hydronephrosis. A cystoscopy identified hematuria from the right ureteral orifice. Diagnostic flexible ureteroscopy revealed numerous intrapapillary renal stones and varicose veins of several renal papillae. A 200 µm holmium laser fiber was used to unroof these stones and fulgurate the varicosities with resolution of her symptoms for several months. She later presented with left-sided symptoms and underwent left ureteroscopy with similar findings and identical successful treatment. CONCLUSION: Unilateral hematuria from discrete vascular lesions of the renal collecting system may be obscured by other benign co-existing conditions, such as nephrocalcinosis and nephrolithiasis. Although a simultaneous presentation is rare, flexible ureteroscopy with laser fulguration offers an ideal diagnostic and therapeutic modality for these concurrent conditions if symptoms arise.

Development of Research Agenda in Prostate Artery Embolization: Summary of Society of Interventional Radiology Consensus Panel.

PURPOSE: To summarize the Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation's Research Consensus Panel development of a research agenda on prostate artery embolization (PAE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PAE for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms has been shown to be safe and effective in decreasing symptoms and prostate size. Lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PAE in the United States has prevented inclusion in American Urologic Association guideline recommendations for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic hyperplasia. Recognizing the need for well-designed trials, the SIR Foundation funded a Research Consensus Panel to prioritize a research agenda. The panel included interventional radiologists, urologists, SIR Foundation leadership, and industry representatives. The goal of the meeting was to discuss weaknesses with current data and study design for development of US trials to report long-term outcomes data. RESULTS: Final consensus on a research design could not be made because the group was split on 3 research designs: (i) RCT of PAE versus sham with crossover of the sham group. (ii) RCT of PAE versus simple prostatectomy. (iii) RCT of PAE versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate/thulium laser enucleation of the prostate. The panel recommended a nonindustry-funded registry to obtain real-world data. CONCLUSIONS: Level 1 data are required to be included in the American Urologic Association guidelines for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Because of concerns with all 3 study designs, the panel did not reach a consensus. Further meetings are planned with the panel to select among these research designs.

Convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: New minimal invasive surgeries have been suggested as alternative options to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy is a new technology that uses targeted, controlled water vapour energy (steam) to create necrotic tissue in the prostate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and the Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 18 February 2020, with no restriction on the language or status of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and non-randomised observational prospective studies with concurrent comparison groups, in which men with BPH underwent convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy, another active therapy, or a sham procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We had planned to perform statistical analyses using a random-effects model, and interpret them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included a single, industry-sponsored RCT, with 197 randomised men, that compared convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy to a sham procedure. The mean age 62.9 years, the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 21.97, and the mean prostate volume was 45.4 mL. We only found short-term data, measured up to three months. Primary outcomes Convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy may improve urologic symptom scores more than a sham procedure, measured on a IPSS scale (0 to 35; higher score represents worse urological symptoms) by a mean difference (MD) of -6.9 (95% confidence interval (CI) -9.06 to -4.74; 195 men; low-certainty evidence), and likely improves quality of life (QoL), measured on a IPSS-QoL scale (0 to 6; higher score represents worse QoL), by a MD of -1.2 (95% CI -1.66 to -0.74; 195 men; moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy on major adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 6.79, 95% CI 0.39 to 117.00; 197 men; very low-certainty evidence) assessed by the Clavien-Dindo classification system of III, IV, and V complications. Secondary outcomes We are very uncertain about the effects of convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy on retreatment (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 32.86; 197 men; very low-certainty evidence). Convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy may have little to no effect on erectile function (MD 0.4, 95% CI -1.91 to 2.71; 130 men; low-certainty evidence) and ejaculatory function (MD 0.5, 95% CI -0.83 to 1.83; 130 men; low-certainty evidence). Convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy may increase minor adverse events assessed by the Clavien-Dindo classification system of Grade I and II complications (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.11; 197 men; low-certainty evidence). This would correspond to 434 minor adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 264 more to 714 more). We are very uncertain about the effects of convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy on acute urinary retention (RR 4.98, 95% CI 0.28 to 86.63; 197 men; very low-certainty evidence). It likely greatly increases the rate of men requiring indwelling urinary catheters (RR 35.58, 95% CI 15.37 to 82.36; 197 men; moderate-certainty evidence). We were unable to perform any of the predefined secondary analyses. We found no evidence for other comparisons, such as convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy versus TURP or other minimal invasive procedures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a sham procedure, urologic symptom scores and quality of life appear to improve with convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy, but we are very uncertain about major adverse events. The certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low, with study limitations and imprecision being the most common reasons for rating down. These findings are based on a single industry-sponsored study, with three-month short-term follow-up. We did not find any studies comparing convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy to any other active treatment form, such as TURP.

Prostatic arterial embolization for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) is a relatively new, minimally invasive treatment approach. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of PAE compared to other procedures for treatment of LUTS in men with BPH. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on language of publication or publication status, up until 25 September 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomized studies (NRS, limited to prospective cohort studies with concurrent comparison groups) enrolling men over the age of 40 with LUTS attributed to BPH undergoing PAE versus TURP or other surgical interventions.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence of RCTs and NRSs.  MAIN RESULTS: We found data to inform two comparisons: PAE versus TURP (six RCTs and two NRSs), and PAE versus sham (one RCT). Mean age, IPSS, and prostate volume of participants were 66 years, 22.8, and 72.8 mL, respectively. This abstract focuses on the comparison of PAE versus TURP as the primary topic of interest. PAE versus TURP We included six RCTs and two NRSs with short-term (up to 12 months) follow-up and one RCT with long-term follow-up (13 to 24 months).  Short-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, there may be little to no difference in urologic symptom score improvement (mean difference [MD] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.40 to 3.50; 369 participants; 6 RCTs; I² = 75%; low-certainty evidence) measured by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) on a scale from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms. There may be little to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.68; 309 participants; 5 RCTs; I² = 56%; low-certainty evidence) as measured by the IPSS quality of life question on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating worse quality of life between PAE and TURP, respectively. While we are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on major adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.10; 250 participants; 4 RCTs; I² = 26%; very low-certainty evidence), PAE may increase re-treatments (RR 3.64, 95% CI 1.02 to 12.98; 204 participants; 3 RCTs; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Based on 18 re-treatments per 1000 men in the TURP group, this corresponds to 47 more (0 more to 214 more) per 1000 men undergoing PAE.   We are very uncertain about the effects on erectile function (MD -0.03, 95% CI -6.35 to 6.29; 129 participants; 2 RCTs; I² = 78%; very low-certainty evidence) measured by the International Index of Erectile Function at 5 on a scale from 1 to 25, with higher scores indicating better function. NRS evidence when available yielded similar results. Based on evidence from NRS, PAE may reduce the occurrence of ejaculatory disorders (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.73; 260 participants; 1 NRS; low-certainty evidence). Longer-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, we are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on urologic symptom scores (MD 0.30, 95% CI -3.17 to 3.77; 95 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to TURP. Quality of life may be similar (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.89; 95 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are also very uncertain about major adverse events (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.13; 107 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find evidence on erectile function and ejaculatory disorders. Based on evidence from NRS, PAE may increase re-treatment rates (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.29; 305 participants; low-certainty evidence); based on 56 re-treatments per 1000 men in the TURP group. this corresponds to 143 more (25 more to 430 more) per 1000 men in the PAE group.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to TURP up to 12 months (short-term follow-up), PAE may provide similar improvement in urologic symptom scores and quality of life. While we are very uncertain about major adverse events, PAE may increase re-treatment rates. We are uncertain about erectile function, but PAE may reduce ejaculatory disorders. Longer term (follow-up of 13 to 24 months), we are very uncertain as to how both procedures compare with regard to urologic symptom scores, but quality of life appears to be similar. We are very uncertain about major adverse events but PAE may increase re-treatments. We did not find longer term evidence on erectile function and ejaculatory disorders. Certainty of evidence for the main outcomes of this review was low or very low, signalling that our confidence in the reported effect size is limited or very limited, and that this topic should be better informed by future research.