The MicroRNAs (miRNAs) Expression in Benign Urological Diseases: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The exact molecular and cellular processes that cause benign urological diseases in the stromal and epithelial components of the urinary tract are yet unknown. Reviewing and analyzing the data linking microRNAs (miRNAs) expression in the pathophysiology of benign urological conditions, including overactive bladder (OAB), bladder outlet obstruction (BOO), bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC), and Lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD) is the objective of the current systematic review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Evidence including all case-control, cohort, and cross-sectional studies that measure participants' MicroRNA as a biomarker for benign urological diseases has been gathered On January 2024, through searching MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and ProQuest databases. Studies considered eligible that present information on the reference Gene, profile type, and serum levels of microRNA from patients diagnosed with benign urological disease including benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) or benign prostate enlargement (BPE), overactive bladder (OAB), and bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). These studies appraised by the quality assessment checklist of Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). RESULTS: A total of 4,587 records related to miRNAs in urological diseases were retrieved. Of these, we identified 28 records for our systematic study. The most frequently associated miRNA was 92a-3p identified which was found upregulated in OAB diagnosis. In BOO, miR-146a-5p was identified to be upregulated. miR-146a-5p was upregulated in BO, and for other benign conditions, different miRNAs were reported. 491-5p miRNAs were found deregulated in OAB-related studies. We expected other miRNAs to have the same trend in the OAB studies. InSUI miR-93 was the most frequent downregulated miRNA. The other reported miRNAs had similar frequencies. CONCLUSION: When it comes to the early detection and treatment of benign urological conditions, 92a-3p, miR-21, miR-199a-5p, and miR-146a-5p, and 491-5p have the potential to be employed as both a biomarker and a therapeutic target. The creation of pre-RNA or anti-RNA molecules within carrier vehicles that may be safely administered to patients should be made possible by technological advancements.

Is sacral neuromodulation effective and safe in pregnancy? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We systematically assessed all available evidence on the efficacy and safety of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) in pregnancy. METHODS: On September 2022, a thorough search was done on Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library. We chose studies that included pregnant women who had SNM previously. Two authors independently evaluated the quality of the study using a standardized tool of JBI. Studies were given a risk of bias rating of low, moderate, or high. Given the descriptive nature of this study, we utilized descriptive statistics to report demographic and clinical features. For continuous variables, we used mean and standard deviation, and for dichotomous data, we used frequencies and percentages. RESULTS: Out of 991 abstracts screened, only 14 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Overall, the quality of the evidence available from the literature is low based on the design of the included studies. Fifty-eight women, including 72 pregnancies, had SNM. The indication of SNM implantation was filling phase disorders in 18 cases (30.5%), voiding dysfunction in 35 women (59.3%), IC/BPS in two cases (3.5%), and fecal incontinence. In 38 pregnancies (58.5%), the SNM status was ON during pregnancy. Forty-nine cases delivered a full-term baby (75.4%), 12 cases had pre-term labor (18.5%), two miscarriages, and two postterm pregnancies happened. The most complications in patients with devices were urinary tract infection in 15 women (23.8%), urinary retention in six patients (9.5%), and pyelonephritis in two cases (3.2%). The findings revealed that when the device was deactivated, 11 cases out of the 23 patients (47.8%) had full-term pregnancies, while in ON status, 35 out of the 38 pregnant women (92.1%) had full-term pregnancies. Nine preterm labors in OFF (39.1%), and two in ON status (5.3%) were recorded. The results revealed that this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002), and those who turned SNM of them off had more preterm labor. Although the studies reported all neonates had a healthy status, two children had chronic motor tic problems and a pilonidal sinus in a case with an active SNM in pregnancy. However, there was no association between the SNM status and pregnancy or neonatal complications (p = 0.057). CONCLUSION: SNM activation in pregnancy seems safe and effective. The choice of whether to activate or deactivate SNM should be made on an individual basis given the current SNM evidence.