The Added Value of MRI-Based Targeted Biopsy in Biopsy-Naïve Patients: A Propensity-Score Matched Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI)-based targeted biopsy has shown to be beneficial in detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) and avoiding diagnosis of Non-csPCa (ncsPCa); however, its role in the treatment of biopsy-naïve patients is still under discussion. METHODS: After identifying predictors for the diagnosis of csPCa via Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis (MLRA), a propensity-score (1:1 nearest neighbor) matched comparison was performed between a Systematic-Only Biopsy (SOB) cohort and a mpMRI-based Combined (systematic + targeted) Biopsy (CB) cohort from two tertiary urologic centers (SOB: Department of Urology, University General Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete, School of Medicine, Heraklion, Crete, Greece; CB: LKH Hall in Tirol, Austria). Only biopsy-naïve patients were included in the study. The study period for the included patients was from February 2018 to July 2023 for the SOB group and from July 2017 to June 2023 for the CB group. The primary outcome was the diagnosis of csPCa (≥ISUP 2); secondary outcomes were overall cancer detection, the added value of targeted biopsy in csPCa detection, and the reduction in ncsPCa diagnosis with CB compared to SOB. To estimate the Average Treatment effect of the Treated groups (ATT), cluster-robust standard errors were used to perform g-computation in the matched sample. p-values < 0.05 with a two-sided 95% confidence interval were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Matching achieved well-balanced groups (each n = 140 for CB and SOB). In the CB group, 65/140 (46.4%) patients were diagnosed with csPCa compared to 44/140 (31.4%) in the SOB group (RR 1.48, 95%-CI: 1.09-2.0, p = 0.01). In the CB group, 4.3% (6/140) and 1.4% (2/140) of csPCa cases were detected with targeted-only and systematic-only biopsy cores, respectively. In the CB group, 22/140 (15.7%) patients were diagnosed with ncsPCa compared to 33/140 (23.6%) in the SOB group (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.41-1.08, p = 0.1). When comparing SOB to CB (ATT), the marginal OR was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.38-0.82, p = 0.003) for the diagnosis of csPCa and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.47-1.05, p = 0.085) for the diagnosis of overall cancer (≥ISUP 1). CONCLUSION: The CB approach was superior to the SOB approach in detecting csPCa, while no additional detection of ncsPCa was seen. Our results support the application of mpMRI for biopsy-naïve patients with suspicions of prostate cancer.

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.

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.

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.

Real-World Evidence of Triplet Therapy in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Austrian Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Two randomized trials demonstrated a survival benefit of triplet therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]) plus androgen receptor pathway inhibitor [ARPI] plus docetaxel) over doublet therapy (ADT plus docetaxel), thus changing treatment strategies in metastatic hormonesensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted the first real-world analysis comprising 97 mHSPC patients from 16 Austrian medical centers, among them 79.4% of patients received abiraterone and 17.5% darolutamide treatment. Baseline characteristics and clinical parameters during triplet therapy were documented. Mann-Whitney U test for continuous or X²-test for categorical variables was used. Variables on progression were tested using logistic regression analysis and tabulated as hazard ratios (HR), 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Of 83.5% patients with synchronous and 16.5% with metachronous disease were included. 83.5% had high-volume disease diagnosed by conventional imaging (48.9%) or PSMA PET-CT (51.1%). While docetaxel and ARPI were administered consistent with pivotal trials, prednisolone, prophylactic gCSF and osteoprotective agents were not applied guideline conform in 32.5%, 37%, and 24.3% of patients, respectively. Importantly, a nonsimultaneous onset of chemotherapy and ARPI, performed in 44.3% of patients, was associated with significantly worse treatment response (P = .015, HR 0.245). Starting ARPI before chemotherapy was associated with significantly higher probability for progression (P = .023, HR 15.781) than vice versa. Strikingly, 15.6% (abiraterone) and 25.5% (darolutamide) low-volume patients as well as 14.4% (abiraterone) and 17.6% (darolutamide) metachronous patients received triplet therapy. Adverse events (AE) occurred in 61.9% with grade 3 to 5 in 15% of patient without age-related differences. All patients achieved a PSA decline of 99% and imaging response was confirmed in 88% of abiraterone and 75% of darolutamide patients. CONCLUSIONS: Triplet therapy arrived in clinical practice primarily for synchronous high-volume mHSPC. Regardless of selected therapy regimen, treatment is highly effective and tolerable. Preferably therapy should be administered simultaneously, however if not possible, chemotherapy should be started first.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Current management of renal colic across Europe and its compliance to the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis: a survey from the European Section of Uro-technology, European Section of Urolithiasis, Young Academic Urologists study groups.

Introduction: Renal colic due to ureteral stones represents the primary acute condition in urology. Although guideline recommendations are available the institution, urologist, and patient preferences in diagnosis and treatment may differ. We aimed to evaluate the adherence of different European countries to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines of urolithiasis and demonstrate trends in diagnostic and treatment approaches. Material and methods: We used a survey including 33 questions clustered in four sections. The survey was circulated to the representatives of the main urological centers in Europe using the European Section of Uro-technology (ESUT), the European Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS), the Young Academic Urologists (YAU), and the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) mailing lists. The first section included participant and institution demographics, the second assessed the common diagnostic and treatment pathways, the third discussed the advantages and disadvantages of treatment strategies and the fourth investigated treatment preferences in different clinical scenarios. A descriptive analysis was performed. Results: Of all participants, 84.21% stated that their departments follow specific guidelines, with no significant differences between institutions (p = 0.18). Preferred treatment practice difference in the case scenarios was significantly influenced by the Department bed capacities (p = 0.01), and complications varied between institutions (p = 0.02). Interestingly, 37-45% of participants were unaware of the different treatment costs. Conclusions: Although urologists generally decide according to local or international guidelines when approaching renal colic patients, there are deviations in clinical practice due to 'doctor preference' and 'bed availability'. Many urologists are unaware of treatment costs.

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.

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.

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.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transperineal Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transrectal Prostate Biopsy-A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies have changed the dogma in prostate cancer diagnosis. Biopsies can be performed either transrectally (MRI-guided and transrectal ultrasound fusion transrectal biopsy [MRI-TRUSB]) or transperineally (MRI-guided and transrectal ultrasound fusion transperineal biopsy [MRI-TPB]). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the detection and complication rates of MRI-TRUSB and MRI-TPB. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a literature search in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, and selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing MRI-TRUSB versus MRI-TPB. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Our search identified 3608 studies; we included five in the qualitative and two in the quantitative synthesis. On per-patient pooled analysis for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), MRI-TPB detection rates were significantly higher (relative risk 1.28 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.03-1.60], p = 0.03). On a per-lesion analysis, MRI-TPB anterior csPCa detection rates were statistically significantly higher (relative risk 2.46 [95% CI 1.22-4.98], p = 0.01). On a per-lesion analysis, MRI-TPB and MRI-TRUSB overall cancer detection rates were 75% and 81.6% (p= 0.53), and csPCa detection rates were 65.7% and 75.5% (p = 0.40), respectively. MRI-TPB had lower complication rates (odds ratio 2.56 [95% CI 1.14-5.56, p < 0.05]). On Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evaluation, we rated all outcomes as "very low" certainty of the evidence for all outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the paucity of good-quality evidence comparing MRI-TPB and MRI-TRUSB. MRI-TPB achieves better detection for csPCa, anterior tumors, and lower infective complications. While RCTs are the highest quality of evidence that can address existing evidence limitations, there are concerns regarding infective complications associated with the MRI-TRUSB. Therefore, the authors propose that researchers and clinicians adopt a pragmatic approach by maintaining prospective databases, internal auditing of the MRI-TPB approach, and comparing these data with historical MRI-TRUSB cohorts. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the outcomes by comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided and transrectal ultrasound fusion transrectal biopsy with MRI-guided and transrectal ultrasound fusion transperineal biopsy (TPB). The analysis suggests, based on very low certainty evidence, that MRI-TPB has better detection for clinically significant prostate cancer, anterior tumors, and lower complications.

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.

Transperineal prostate biopsy: The modern gold standard to prostate cancer diagnosis.

In patients suspicious for prostate cancer, a prostate biopsy should be performed. Biopsies are possible either by the transrectal or transperineal routes. Compared with the transrectal prostate biopsy (TRPBx), transperineal prostate biopsy (TPPBx) offers a non-inferior cancer detection rate (CDR), especially in patients undergoing re-biopsy for persistently elevated PSA and in cases of active surveillance (AS), in which TPPBx seems to be superior. Moreover, the transperineal route achieves superior sampling of the anterior and apical regions, especially after previous multiple negative TRPBx. Infectious complications are nullified due to avoidance of needle passage through the rectal mucosa, and there is a highly significant evidence of reduced fever and sepsis rates when compared with TRPBx, with maintaining acceptable urinary retention rates. This is an important upcoming topic due to the increasing antibiotic resistance rates, thus reducing periinterventional hospitalization and health care costs. To date, TPPBx is perfectly feasible in the inpatient and out-patient settings and under local anesthesia, characterized by a moderate learning curve and a good reproducibility. By applying mpMRI as a diagnostic tool, clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection seems to be comparable to transrectal MRI-fusion biopsy (TR-MRIFBx). Finally, focal treatment of localized disease is currently performed exclusively through a TP approach.

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.