Comparison of systematic and combined biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT: Systematic prostate biopsy has limitations, such as overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer and underdiagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy, a promising alternative, might improve diagnostic accuracy. To compare the cancer detection rates of systematic biopsy and combined biopsy (systematic biopsy plus MRI-targeted biopsy) in Asian men, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of men who underwent either systematic biopsy or combined biopsy at two medical centers (Queen Mary Hospital and Tung Wah Hospital, Hong Kong, China) from July 2015 to December 2022. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. The primary and secondary outcomes were prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer. A total of 1391 participants were enrolled. The overall prostate cancer detection rates did not significantly differ between the two groups (36.3% vs 36.6%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-1.26, P = 0.92). However, combined biopsy showed a significant advantage in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 3+4) in patients with a total serum prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) concentration of 2-10 ng ml-1 (systematic vs combined: 11.9% vs 17.5%, OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.08-2.31, P = 0.02). Specifically, in the transperineal biopsy subgroup, combined biopsy significantly outperformed systematic biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (systematic vs combined: 12.6% vs 24.0%, OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.21-3.97, P = 0.01). These findings suggest that in patients with a tPSA concentration of 2-10 ng ml-1, MRI-targeted biopsy may be of greater predictive value than systematic biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Oncological and Functional Outcomes of Penile Shaft Sparing Surgery for Localised Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Penile shaft sparing (PSS) surgery for localised penile cancer (PeCa) aims to balance oncological and functional outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To summarise the published evidence on different PSS approaches. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases up to February 14, 2023. The inclusion criteria encompassed retrospective or prospective studies including patients ≥18 yr of age with localised PeCa treated with different PSS approaches, classified as laser ablation, circumcision, wide local excision, glansectomy with or without split skin graft, glans resurfacing, and mixed technique excision. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A quantitative synthesis was not performed due to anticipated data heterogeneity and a lack of comparative studies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Out of 4343 articles identified, 47 met our inclusion criteria, including 10 847 patients. The year of publication ranged between 1983 and 2021. Nine studies were prospective case series, while the remaining studies were retrospective. No comparative studies were identified. Most of the cases included in these studies were Ta and T1. The oncological outcomes were good for all the approaches, with cancer-specific mortality ranging between 0% and 18%. Sexual and cosmetic outcomes, despite being under-reported, were good for all the approaches, with almost all patients being satisfied with their quality of life after surgery. The Newcastle and Ottawa scale revealed a high or severely high risk of bias in all the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: PSS approaches were safe and had good functional outcomes, considering however the overall low quality of the studies on this issue. PATIENT SUMMARY: The perioperative, function, and oncological outcomes of penile shaft sparing approaches are good. However, high-quality studies are needed to determine whether these approaches benefit patients with localised penile cancer.

Techniques for Penile Augmentation Surgery: A Systematic Review of Surgical Outcomes, Complications, and Quality of Life.

The increase in practices related to enhancing penile size can be attributed to the belief that an improved genital appearance contributes to a man's virility, coupled with an altered self-perception of his body. It is crucial to tailor interventions to meet the genuine needs of patients by thoroughly assessing their history, psychological state, and potential surgical benefits, all while considering the associated risks of complications. This systematic review aims to summarize the available evidence on outcomes, complications, and quality of life after penile augmentation surgery, examining both minimally invasive and more radical techniques. A search of the PubMed and Scopus databases, focusing on English-language papers published in the last 15 years, was performed in December 2023. Papers discussing surgery in animal models and case reports were excluded from the present study unless further evaluated in a follow-up case series. The primary outcomes were changes in penile dimensions, specifically in terms of length and girth, as well as the incidence of surgical complications and the impact on quality of life. A total of 1670 articles were retrieved from the search and 46 were included for analysis. Procedures for penile length perceived enhancements include lipoplasty, skin reconstruction plasty, V-Y and Z plasty, flap reconstruction, scrotoplasty, ventral phalloplasty, and suspensory ligament release; techniques for increasing corporal penile length include penile disassembly, total phalloplasty, and sliding elongation. Finally, penile girth enhancement may be performed using soft tissue fillers, grafting procedures, biodegradable scaffolds, and Penuma®. In conclusion, while penile augmentation surgeries offer potential solutions for individuals concerned about genital size, the risks and complexities need to be accounted for.

A study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial investigating videoendoscopic radical inguinal lymphadenectomy versus open radical inguinal lymphadenectomy in patients with penile cancer (VELRAD).

BACKGROUND: Penile cancer is a rare male genital malignancy. Surgical excision of the primary tumour is followed by radical inguinal lymphadenectomy if there is metastatic disease detected by biopsy, fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) or following sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with impalpable disease. However, radical inguinal lymphadenectomy is associated with a high morbidity rate, and there is increasing usage of a videoendoscopic approach as an alternative. METHODS: A pragmatic, UK-wide multicentre feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT), comparing videoendoscopic radical inguinal lymphadenectomy versus open radical inguinal lymphadenectomy. Patients will be identified and recruited from supraregional multi-disciplinary team meetings (sMDT) and must be aged 18 or over requiring inguinal lymphadenectomy, with no contraindications to surgical intervention for their cancer. Participants will be followed up for 6 months following randomisation. The primary outcome is the ability to recruit patients for randomisation across all selected sites and the rate of loss to follow-up. Other outcomes include acceptability of the trial and intervention to patients and healthcare professionals assessed by qualitative research and obtaining resource utilisation information for health economic analysis. DISCUSSION: There are currently no other published RCTs comparing videoendoscopic versus open radical inguinal lymphadenectomy. Ongoing study is required to determine whether randomising patients to either procedure is feasible and acceptable to patients. The results of this study may determine the design of a subsequent trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov PRS registry, registration number NCT05592639. Date of registration: 13th October 2022, retrospectively registered.

Long-term outcomes of penile squamous cell carcinoma in men age ≤50 years old compared with men >50 years old from a single tertiary referral centre: a propensity score matched analysis.

Penile cancer (PeCa) is rare, and the oncological outcomes in younger men are unclear. We aimed to analyse and compare oncological outcomes of men age ≤50 years (y) and >50 years with PeCa. A retrospective analysis of men ≤50 y with penile squamous cell carcinoma managed at a tertiary centre was performed. A propensity score matched cohort of men >50 y was identified for comparison. Matching was according to tumour, nodal stage and the types of primary surgery. Overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and metastasis-free survivals (MFS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier plots and compared using log-rank tests. Between 2005-2020, 100 men ≤50 y (median (IQR) age, 46 y (40-49)) were identified and matched with 100 men >50 y (median (IQR) age, 65 y (59-73)). 10, 24, 32, 34 men age ≤50 y were diagnosed in 2005-2007, 2008-2012, 2013-2016 and 2017-2020 respectively. Median (IQR) follow-up was 53.5 (18-96) months. OS at 2 years: ≤50 y, 86%>50 y, 80.6%; 5 years: ≤50 y, 78.1%, >50 y, 63.1%; 10 years: ≤50 y, 72.3%, >50 y, 45.6% (p = 0.01). DSS at 2 years: ≤50 y, 87.2%>50 y, 87.8%; 5 years: ≤50 y, 80.9%>50 y, 78.2%; 10 years: ≤50 y, 78%, >50 y, 70.9% (p = 0.74). RFS was 93.1% in the ≤50 y group (vs. >50 y, 96.5%) at 2 year, and 90% (vs. >50 y, 88.5%) at 5 years, p = 0.81. Within the ≤50 y group, 2 years and 5 years MFS was 93% (vs. >50 y, 96.5%), and 89.5% (vs. >50 y, 92.7%) respectively, (p = 0.40). There were no statistical significance in DFS, RFS and MFS in men age ≤50 y and >50 y. PeCa in younger patients is fatal, public awareness and patient education are crucial for early detection and management.

Fournier's gangrene of the penis complicating both COVID-19- and Mpox-related genital ulceration - A case report.

Fournier's gangrene is a rare, rapidly progressive, fulminant form of infective necrotising fasciitis of the genital, perianal and perineal regions. We present a case of Fournier's gangrene of the penis complicating acute genital ulceration and recurrent paraphimosis that was secondary to contemporaneous COVID-19 and Mpox infection in an otherwise healthy 41-year-old man. It is important for clinicians to be aware of Fournier's gangrene, as early detection remains the cornerstone of effective tissue and indeed life conserving management.

Primary squamous cell carcinoma of the scrotum: Outcomes from a specialist center.

BACKGROUND: Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the scrotum is a rare and aggressive cancer. There are no established guidelines on the management of scrotal SCC. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical management and outcomes of scrotal SCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with primary scrotal SCC over a 10-year period was performed. The type of surgery, tumor stage and histological subtypes, recurrence rate and metastases, cancer-specific mortality (CSM), and other-cause mortality (OCM) were analyzed. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2022, a total of 10 men were identified with primary scrotal SCC. The median (interquartile, IQR) age was 65.5 (55-77) years. Wide local excision was performed in 9 patients and 1 patient underwent a total scrotectomy. The pathological T-stage was: pT1, n = 3; pT2, n = 1; pT3, n = 5 (50%); pT4, n = 1. Four patients had pathologically positive inguinal lymph nodes and 2 had distant metastatic disease at presentation. At a median (IQR) follow-up of 10.5 (4-31) months 5 patients died, of which 3 died from scrotal SCC. CONCLUSION: Scrotal SCC is extremely rare in the UK with only 10 primary cases identified in our center over the past 10 years. Surgical resection of the tumor and appropriate inguinal node staging are required due to a high proportion of cases which metastasize to the inguinal lymph nodes. PATIENT SUMMARY: Scrotal cancer is rare. 10 cases were diagnosed over 10 years at a single center. Around half had disease spread to the groin nodes or distant organs at presentation. Surgical resection was required in all patients. At the time of analysis, half of the patients are alive. Due to the rarity and aggressiveness of the cancer, management should be carried out within a specialist center.

Robotic ureteral reconstruction for benign ureteral strictures: a systematic review of surgical techniques, complications and outcomes : Robotic Ureteral Reconstruction for Ureteral Strictures.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) has been widely used to treat ureteral diseases. To summarize the surgical techniques, complications, and outcomes following RUR, as well as to compare data on RUR with open and laparoscopic ureteral reconstruction. METHODS: Our systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42022309364) database. The PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for publications in English on 06-Feb-2022. Randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised cohort studies with sample size ≥ 10 cases were included. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies were included involving 996 patients and 1004 ureters from 13 non-comparative, and 10 retrospective comparative studies. No RCT study of RUR was reported. The success rate was reported ≥ 90% in 15 studies. Four studies reported 85-90% success rate. Meta-analyses for comparative studies showed that RUR had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (P = 0.006) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (P < 0.001) than the open approach. RUR had shorter operative time than laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RUR is associated with lower EBL and shorter LOS than the open approach, and shorter operative time than the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of benign ureteral strictures. However, further studies and more evidence are needed to determine whether RUR is more superior.

Insertion of inflatable penile prosthesis in the neophallus of assigned female at birth individuals: a systematic review of surgical techniques, complications and outcomes.

Devices such as inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) can be used to achieve erectile rigidity after phalloplasty in assigned female at birth (AFAB) individuals. The approach to inserting an IPP in a neophallus is different and more challenging compared to that of an anatomical penis due to the absence of anatomical structures such as the corpora cavernosa, and the more tenuous blood supply of the neophallus and reconstructed urethra. In addition, the ideal surgical techniques and devices for use in the neophallus have not been defined. This review systematically summarises the literature on the insertion of IPP in the neophallus of individuals AFAB. In particular, the described techniques, types of devices used and peri-operative and patient-reported outcomes are emphasised. An initial search of the PubMed database was performed on 16 September 2022 and an updated search was performed on 26 May 2023. Overall, 185 articles were screened for eligibility and 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Two studies reported outcomes on the zephyr surgical implant 475 FTM device and the others reported outcomes on the Boston Scientific AMS 600/700TM CX 3-piece inflatable, AMS AmbicorTM 2-piece inflatable, Coloplast Titan® or Dynaflex devices. Overall, 1106 IPPs were analysed. The infection rate was 4.2%-50%, with most studies reporting an infection rate of <30%. Mechanical failure or dysfunction occurred in 1.4%-36.4%, explantation was required in 3.3%-41.6%, and implant revision or replacement was performed in 6%-70%. Overall, 51.4%-90.6% of patients were satisfied and 77%-100% were engaging in sexual intercourse. An IPP in a neophallus is an acceptable option to achieve rigidity for sexual intercourse. However, this challenging procedure has good reports of patient and partner satisfaction despite significant risks of complications.

The definition of ideal training of a urology resident from two different perspectives: trainees vs professors. Is there agreement in their idea of good training?

Introduction: At the end of their residency program, urology trainees should reach the minimum skills required to be able to work by themselves and within a team. To achieve this objective, it is fundamental that the training involves not only surgical activities, but also theoretical, academic, and relational ones. What is the perfect balance between these activities within the ideal urological training? This study aims to evaluate the concordance in different concepts of good urological training between different perspectives (trainees vs professors). Material and methods: Between January and December 2020 the same survey was distributed via email to 967 urology trainees and urology tutors. The survey investigated 5 educational fields: theoretical, clinical, surgical, relational, and simulation. For each field, specific questions investigated the importance of different activities and the training outcomes considered fundamental to be reached by a resident. The questions were evaluated by responders through a Likert 10-point scale. Results: The survey was completed by 155 trainees (58.9%, Group A) and 108 tutors (41.1%, Group B) from 26 different countries. Relative to the tutors, residents assigned statistically significantly lower scores to prostate biopsy (median score 9.11 vs 9.24), robotic simulator training (5.66 vs 5.93), on-call duties with consultants (6.85 vs 7.99), as well as all aspects of relational training (e.g., proper dialogue with colleagues: 7.95 vs 8.88). Conversely, residents assigned statistically significantly higher scores, albeit below sufficiency, to the performance of robotic prostatectomy as a first operator (4.45 vs 4.26). Finally, no discrepancies between residents' and tutors' scores were recorded regarding the remaining items of clinical training (e.g., urodynamics, outpatient clinic, ward duties) and surgical training (e.g., major open, laparoscopic and endoscopic surgical training; all p values >0.05). Conclusions: There was partial concordance between trainees and tutors regarding the activities that should be implemented and the skills that should be achieved during a urological residency. The residents aimed for more surgical involvement, while the tutors and professors, although giving importance to surgical and theoretical training, considered clinical practice as the fundamental basis on which to train future urologists.

Outcomes of penile sarcomatoid squamous cell carcinoma from a single tertiary referral centre: a matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To report the oncological survival outcomes of men with penile sarcomatoid squamous cell carcinoma (sSCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of men with penile sSCC diagnosed between January 2010 and January 2020 in a single centre was conducted. Disease-specific (DSS), recurrence-free (RFS) and metastasis-free (MFS) survival were evaluated. Outcomes were compared with a non-sarcomatoid penile SCC cohort matched to age, type of surgery and tumour stage. Kaplan-Meier plots were used to estimate survival outcomes. RESULTS: In all, 1286 men were diagnosed with penile SCC during the study period and of these 38 (3%) men had sSCC. The median (interquartile range) age and follow-up was 70 (57-81) years and 16 (7-44) months, respectively. Operations performed included: circumcision, one (2.6%); wide local excision, four (10.5%); glansectomy, 11 (29%); partial penectomy, 10 (26%); subtotal/total penectomy, 12 (32%). The Kaplan-Meier estimated 12-, 24- and 36-month DSS was 62% (vs non-sarcomatoid, 67%), 43% (vs non-sarcomatoid, 67%) and 36% (vs non-sarcomatoid, 67%), respectively (P = 0.03). The Kaplan-Meier estimated 12- and 24-month RFS was 47% (vs non-sarcomatoid, 60%) and 28% (vs non-sarcomatoid, 55%), respectively (P = 0.01). The MFS was 52% (vs non-sarcomatoid, 62%) at 12 months and 37% (vs non-sarcomatoid, 57%) at 24 months (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Sarcomatoid differentiation was associated with a lower DSS, RFS and MFS. Due to the rarity of its incidence and aggressiveness, expert histological review and multidisciplinary management is required in a specialist penile cancer centre.

Hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy with mitomycin-C for the treatment of high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients.

Objectives: The objectives of the study are to explore tolerability, acceptability and oncological outcomes for patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) treated with hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy (HIVEC) and mitomycin-C (MMC) at our institution. Patients and Methods: Our single-institution, observational study consists of consecutive high-risk NMIBC patients treated with HIVEC and MMC. Our HIVEC protocol included six weekly instillations (induction), followed by two further cycles of three instillations (maintenance) (6 + 3 + 3) if there was cystoscopic response. Patient demographics, instillation dates and adverse events (AEs) were collected prospectively in our dedicated HIVEC clinic. Retrospective case-note review was performed to evaluate oncological outcomes. Primary outcomes were tolerability and acceptability of HIVEC protocol; secondary outcomes were 12-month recurrence-free, progression-free and overall survival. Results: In total, 57 patients (median age 80.3 years) received HIVEC and MMC, with a median follow-up of 18 months. Of these, 40 (70.2%) had recurrent tumours, and 29 (50.9%) had received prior Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG). HIVEC induction was completed by 47 (82.5%) patients, but only 19 (33.3%) completed the full protocol. Disease recurrence (28.9%) and AEs (28.9%) were the most common reasons for incompletion of protocol; five (13.2%) patients stopped treatment due to logistical challenges. AEs occurred in 20 (35.1%) patients; the most frequently documented were rash (10.5%), urinary tract infection (8.8%) and bladder spasm (8.8%). Progression during treatment occurred in 11 (19.3%) patients, 4 (7.0%) of whom had muscle invasion and 5 (8.8%) subsequently required radical treatment. Patients who had received prior BCG were significantly more likely to progress (p = 0.04). 12-month recurrence-free, progression-free and overall survival rates were 67.5%, 82.2%, and 94.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Our single-institution experience suggests that HIVEC and MMC are tolerable and acceptable. Oncological outcomes in this predominantly elderly, pretreated cohort are promising; however, disease progression was higher in patients pretreated with BCG. Further randomised noninferiority trials comparing HIVEC versus BCG in high-risk NMIBC are required.

The need for a course to complete urological education for consultant practice using a simulated 'boot camp' structure at the end of specialist training: A survey-based study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To obtain opinions from urology trainees and consultants regarding the need for, and structure of, a post-specialty training Urology Simulation Boot Camp (USBC) for consultant practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: A survey-based study was conducted, and 'Google Forms' were distributed electronically via social media. Urology specialist trainees (ST) in years 5-7 (ST5-ST7), post-certification of completion of training (CCT) fellows and ST3 boot camp faculty consultants in practice for ≤5 years and >5 years were included. One hundred and seven responses were received. 97.2% of responders thought a pre-consultant USBC was worthwhile; 55.1% selected the course duration to be 2 days. 47.7% felt that the USBC should be delivered post-exam in ST7. 91.6%, 43.9%, 73.8%, 87.9% and 74.8% considered that modules in emergency operative procedures, novel uro-technologies, delivering multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, non-clinical consultant roles and responsibilities, stress and burnout to be important, respectively. 62.6% and 31.8% felt that the course should be wholly or part-funded by Health Education England (HEE). CONCLUSIONS: A post-specialty training, pre-consultant, USBC delivered post-exam in ST7, is worthwhile and should include modules on emergency operative procedures, leading MDTs, non-clinical roles and responsibilities and managing stress and burnout in consultant careers. Ideally, it should be fully/part-funded by HEE.

Complications and outcomes following injection of foreign material into the male external genitalia for augmentation: a single-centre experience and systematic review.

Injection of exogenous material into the penis and scrotum has been performed for augmentation purposes. Complications include cosmetic dissatisfaction, penile necrosis and lymphoedema. We report the complications and outcomes from a single centre with an updated systematic review of the literature. A retrospective review of all cases presenting with foreign substance injection into the genitalia, over a 10-year period was performed. Thirty-five patients with a mean (standard deviation (SD); range) age of 36.9 (±9.1; 22-61) years at presentation were included. The mean (SD; range) time between injection and presentation was 7.8 (±5.8; 1 day-20 years) years. The most common injected substance was silicone (n = 16, 45.7%) and liquid paraffin (n = 8, 22.9%). The penile shaft (94.3%) was the most injected site. The most common presentations were cosmetic dissatisfaction (57.1%) and pain and/or swelling (45.7%). Surgery was required in 32 (91.4%) cases. Primary procedures included local excision and primary closure (n = 19, 59.4%), circumcision (n = 5, 15.6%), excision with a split skin graft or a scrotal flap reconstruction (n = 5, 15.6%). Three (8.6%) patients presented with necrosis and required acute debridement. Overall, 18 patients had more than 1 procedure, and 8 patients required 3 or more procedures. A systematic search of the literature identified 887 articles of which 68 studies were included for analysis. The most common substance injected was paraffin (47.7%), followed by silicone (15.8%). The majority of patients (77.9%) presented with pain, swelling or penile deformity. 78.8% of the patients underwent surgical treatment, which included excision and primary closure with or without the use of skin grafts (85.1% of all procedures), the use of flaps (12.3%) and penile amputation (n = 2). Complications of foreign body injection into the male genitalia can be serious resulting in necrosis and autoamputation. Surgical intervention is often required to excise abnormal tissue to manage pain and improve cosmesis.

Peri- and post-operative outcomes, complications, and functional results amongst different modifications of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate and assess outcomes, complications, and functional results amongst different modifications of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA checklist. We searched the Medline, Cochrane, and Embase databases. We included only randomised-controlled trials (RCT) comparing modifications of EEPs and assessed the risk of bias (RoB). RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included in the study. Overall, 1266 patients were treated with Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and 80 patients with thulium laser vapo-enucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP). The operative time during pulse shape-modified HoLEP was shorter when compared to standard pulse HoLEP (MD 18.08 min, 95% CI 8.11-28.05 min, p = 0.0004). The decrease in haemoglobin was significantly lower for two-lobe HoLEP when compared to three-lobe HoLEP (MD 0.16 g/dl, 95% CI 0.22-0.1 g/dl, p < 0.00001). Virtual Basket (VB) HoLEP showed a smaller haemoglobin decrease when compared to standard pulse HoLEP (1.12 ± 1.78 vs. 2.54 ± 1.23 g/dl, p = 0.03). When directly comparing one- vs. two- vs. three-lobe HoLEP, surgical time (p < 0.001) and enucleation efficiency (p = 0.006) were significantly different and favouring one- and two-lobe HoLEP in the study with the largest patient population included. No significant differences for complications were observed; however, Clavien-Dindo IVa events were reported for two patients. CONCLUSION: All variations of EEP improve symptoms and functional parameters with a low incidence of high-grade complications. One- and two-lobe approaches and pulse shape-modified HoLEP seem to be beneficial in terms of operative time and blood loss.

Videoendoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy Versus Radical Open Dissection (VELRAD) in Patients with Male Genital Cancer: A Clinical Trial Update.

VELRAD is the first multicentre feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing videoendoscopic radical inguinal lymphadenectomy versus open dissection for male genital cancer. We have randomised nine patients so far in our attempt to identify the best approach to inguinal lymph node dissection.