Urinary Tract Infection Predictors in Patients Undergoing Retrograde IntraRenal Surgery for Renal Stones: Does the Instrument Make the Difference?

Background: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) using flexible ureterorenoscopes is a cornerstone approach for renal stone removal, yet it carries a significant risk of postoperative urinary tract infection (UTI). With the emergence of single-use ureterorenoscopes, there is growing interest in their potential to mitigate this risk. This study aimed to compare the postoperative infection rates between single-use and multi-use ureterorenoscopes in RIRS procedures and to identify predictors of postoperative UTI. Methods: Data were collected from 112 consecutive patients who underwent RIRS for renal stones between March 2022 and September 2023. Peri-operative variables including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), stone size, stone location, type of ureterorenoscope, Hounsfield Units (HU), pre-operative hydronephrosis, laboratory analysis, and operative time were evaluated. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the predictors of postoperative UTI. Results: Of the cohort, 77 surgeries (68.7%) utilized multi-use ureterorenoscopes, while 35 (31.3%) utilized single-use devices. Stone diameter, number of stones, type of ureterorenoscope, and operative time were significant predictors of postoperative UTI in the univariate analysis. Multivariable logistic regression showed that operative time (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; p = 0.03) and type of ureterorenoscope (multi-use vs. single-use) (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.08-1.2; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of postoperative UTI. Conclusions: In conclusion, this study highlights that multi-use ureterorenoscopes and prolonged operative time are associated with an increased risk of postoperative UTI in RIRS procedures. Careful pre-operative evaluation and meticulous patient selection are essential to minimize the occurrence of postoperative UTIs and optimize patient outcomes in RIRS for renal stones.

Is water vapor thermal therapy safe and feasible in elderly and frail men? The Italian experience.

PURPOSE: In recent years, water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT) has spread as minimally invasive technique in lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment. Even if its safety and feasibility have been largely proved in young men, nobody has proved the same feasibility and safety in the elderly (men older than 75 years old). Our aim is to compare WVTT safety outcomes in men older than 75 with younger men. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on men who underwent water vapor thermal therapy from 2019. We compared data on operative time, number of injections, intra-operative and post-operative complications, reinterventions rate. RESULTS: We enrolled 426 patients; among these, 60 were older than 75 years old, 366 were younger. Our cohorts of patients had similar results in terms of intra-operative and post-operative complications. Operative time accounts about 11 min for both groups (p = 0.535), total number of injections was seven for young men and eight for elderly (p = 0.314). We found no intra-operative complications in elderly men group and only one in the younger group (p = 0.678), while five younger men underwent clot retention, and two elderly men experienced this complication (p = 0.239). Only one transfusion occurred in the elderly group. No differences between groups occurred in terms of length of stay, post-operative urinary retention and reintervention rate, while catheterization time was longer in the elderly men. CONCLUSION: WVTT is a safe procedure in elderly patients with comparable intra-operative and post-operative complication rate in comparison with younger patients.

Impact of Robotic Technologies on Prostate Cancer Patients' Choice for Radical Treatment.

Prostate cancer (PCa) surgery has a strong impact on men's social and sexual lives. For this reason, many patients ask for robotic surgery. To assess the rate of lost patients due to the lack of a robotic platform (RPl) at our center, we retrospectively selected 577 patients who underwent prostate biopsy between 2020 and 2021 who were eligible for radical prostatectomy (RP) (ISUP ≥ 2; age ≤ 70 yr). Patients eligible for surgery who decided to be operated received a phone call interview asking the reason for their choice. Overall, 230 patients (31.7%) underwent laparoscopic-assisted radical prostatectomy (LaRP) at our center, while 494 patients (68.3%) were not treated in our hospital. Finally, 347 patients were included: 87 patients (25.1%) underwent radiotherapy; 59 patients (17%) were already under another urologist's care; 113 patients (32.5%) underwent robotic surgery elsewhere; and 88 patients (25.4%) followed the suggestion of friends or relatives based on their surgical experience. Despite no surgical technique for RP having shown superiority in terms of oncological or functional outcomes, patients eligible for PCa treatment decided to be operated on elsewhere because of the lack of an RPl. Our results show how the presence of an RPl may increase the case volume of RP by 49% at our center.