Benefits and Harms of Benign Prostatic Obstruction Treatments in Renal Transplanted Patients.

CONTEXT: In an increasingly ageing transplant population, timely management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) is key to preventing complications that result in graft dysfunction or compromise survival. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate benefits/harms of BPO treatments in transplant patients by reviewing current literature. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A computerised bibliographic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed for studies reporting outcomes on BPO treatments in transplanted patients. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 5021 renal transplants (RTs) performed between 1990 and 2016 were evaluated. BPO incidence was 1.61 per 1000 population per year. Overall, 264 men underwent intervention. The mean age was 58.4 yr (27-73 yr). In all, 169 patients underwent surgery (n = 114 transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP]/n = 55 transurethral incision of the prostate [TUIP]) and 95 were treated with an un-named alpha-blocker (n = 46) or doxazosin (n = 49). There was no correlation between prostate volume and treatment modality (mean prostate size = 26 cc in the surgical group where reported and 48 cc in the medical group). The mean follow-up was 31.2 mo (2-192 mo). The time from RT to BPO treatment was reported in six studies (mean: 15.4 mo, range: 0-156 mo). The time on dialysis before RT was recorded in only three studies (mean: 47.3 mo, range: 0-288 mo). There was a mean improvement in creatinine after intervention from 2.17 to 1.77 mg/dl. A total of 157 men showed an improvement in the International Prostate Symptom Score (from 18.26 to 6.89), and there was a significant reduction in postvoid residual volume in 199 (mean fall 90.6 ml). Flow improved by a mean of 10 ml/s following intervention in 199 patients. Complications included acute urinary retention (4.1%), urinary tract infections (8.4%), bladder neck contracture (2.2%), and urethral strictures (6.9%). The mean reoperation rate was 1.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature is heterogeneous and of low-level evidence. Despite this, alpha-blockers, TUIP, and TURP showed a beneficial increase in the peak urinary flow and reduced symptoms in transplants patients with BPO. Improvement in the mean graft creatinine was noted after intervention. Complications were under-reported. A multicentre comparative cohort study is needed to draw firm conclusions about the ideal treatment for BPO in RT patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we looked at the outcomes for transplant patients undergoing medical or surgical management of benign prostatic obstruction. Although the literature was very heterogeneous, we found that medical management and surgery with transurethral resection/incision of the prostate are beneficial for improving urinary flow and bothersome symptoms. We conclude that further prospective studies are required for better clarity about timing and modality of intervention in transplant patients.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Interventions on Nephrolithiasis in Transplanted Kidney.

CONTEXT: De Novo nephrolithiasis in renal transplant can have severe consequences since renal transplantation involves a single functioning kidney with medical and anatomical specificities (heterotopic transplantation on iliac vessels, immunosuppressive treatments, and comorbidities). OBJECTIVE: To systematically review all available evidence on the prevalence of de novo nephrolithiasis in renal transplant, presentation, and stone characteristics, and to report in a meta-analysis the efficacy of stone treatments (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy [ESWL], medical treatment, percutaneous nephrolithotomy [PCNL], open surgery, and ureteroscopy). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to November 2021 for all relevant publications reporting the management of de novo nephrolithiasis in renal allografts. The primary outcome was stone-free rate (SFR) at 3 mo. Secondary outcomes included prevalence, stone characteristics (size, density, and composition), symptoms on presentation, need for drainage, complications, and recurrence. Data were narratively synthesized in light of methodological and clinical heterogeneity, and a meta-analysis was performed for SFR. The risk of bias of each included study was assessed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included 37 retrospective studies with 553 patients and 612 procedures; of the 612 procedures 20 were antegrade ureteroscopy, 154 retrograde ureteroscopy, 118 PCNL, 25 open surgery, 155 ESWL, and 140 surveillance/medical treatment. The prevalence of nephrolithiasis in renal transplant was 1.0%. The mean stone size on diagnosis was 11 mm (2-50). The overall SFR at 3 mo was 82%: 96% with open surgery, 95% with antegrade ureteroscopy, 86% with PCNL, 81% with retrograde ureteroscopy, and 75% with ESWL. CONCLUSIONS: De novo nephrolithiasis in renal transplant is an infrequent condition. A high SFR were obtained with an antegrade approach (ureteroscopy, PCNL, and open approach) that should be considered in renal transplant patients owing to the heterotopic position of the renal graft. The choice of technique was correlated with stone size: generally ureteroscopy and ESWL for stones 11-12 mm (mean stone size) versus PCNL and open surgery for 17-25 mm stones. PATIENT SUMMARY: De novo nephrolithiasis in renal transplants is an infrequent situation that can have severe consequences on the function of the renal graft. We evaluated the efficacy of each treatment and noted that antegrade approaches (open surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and antegrade ureteroscopy) were associated with the highest stone-free rate. As opposed to the management of nephrolithiasis in native kidney, an antegrade approach should be considered more in renal transplant patients.

Current practices regarding corporotomy localization during penoscrotal inflatable penile implant surgery: a multicenter cohort study.

Literature concerning corporotomy location in multicomponent inflatable penile prosthetic surgery via a penoscrotal approach is scarce if not nonexistent. Aim of our study was to report practices in low-, moderate-, and high-volume penile implant centers regarding corporotomy location and evaluate its potential impact on intraoperative and short-term postoperative complications. Data from 18 (13 European and 5 American) implant centers were collected retrospectively between September 1st, 2018 and August 31st, 2019. Variables included: intraoperative proximal and distal corpus cavernosum length measurement, total corporal length measurement, total penile implant cylinder length, and length of rear tip extenders. Eight hundred and nine virgin penile implant cases were included in the analysis. Mean age of participants was 61.5 ± 9.6 years old. In total, 299 AMS 700™ (Boston Scientific, USA) and 510 Coloplast Titan® (Minneapolis, MN USA) devices were implanted. The mean proximal/distal corporal measurement ratio during corporotomy was 0.93 ± 0.29 while no statistical difference was found among low-, moderate-, and high-volume penile implant centers. A statistically significant correlation between lower proximal/distal measurement ratio and higher age (p = 0.0013), lower BMI (p < 0.0001), lower use of rear tip extenders (RTE) (p = 0.04), lower RTE length (p < 0.0001), and absence of diabetes (p = 0.0004) was reported. In a 3-month follow up period, 49 complications and 37 revision procedures were reported. This is the first study reporting the current practices regarding corporotomy location during IPP placement in a multicenter cohort, particularly when including such a high number of patients. Nevertheless, the retrospective design and the short follow up period limits the study outcomes. Corporotomy location during penoscrotal IPP implantation does not correlate with intraoperative or short-term postoperative complication rates. Future studies with longer follow up are needed in order to evaluate the association of corporotomy location with long-term complications.

[SARS-CoV-2 infection: implications for sexual and reproductive health. A position statement of the Asociación Española de Andrología, Medicina Sexual y Reproductiva (ASESA)]. / Infección por SARS-CoV-2: implicaciones para la salud sexual y reproductiva. Una declaración de posición de la Asociación Española de Andrología, Medicina Sexual y Reproductiva (ASESA).

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this revision is to summarize the current existing evidence of the potential adverse effects of SARS-CoV-2 on the male reproductive system and provide the recommendations of the Asociación Española de Andrología, Medicina Sexual y Reproductiva (ASESA) concerning the implications of COVID-19 infection in the management of male infertilty patients and testicular endocrine dysfunction. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic literature search of the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Medline, Cochrane and MedRxiv, was carried out. RESULTS: The presence of orchitis as a potential complication of the infection by SARS-CoV-2 has not yet been confirmed. One study reported that 19% of males with COVID-19 infection had scrotal symptoms suggestive of viral orchitis which could not be confirmed. It is possible that the virus, rather than infecting the testes directly, may induce a secondary autoimmune response leading to autoimmune orchitis. COVID-19 has been associated with coagulation disorders and thus the orchitis could be the result of segmental vasculitis. Existing data concerning the presence of the virus in semen are contradictory. Only one study reported the presence of RNA in 15.8% of patients with COVID-19. However, the presence of nucleic acid or antigen in semen is not synonyms of viral replication capacity and infectivity. It has been reported an increase in serum levels of LH in males with COVID-19 and a significant reduction in the T/LH and FSH/LH ratios, consistent with subclinical hypogonadism. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of recent reports related to the potential effects of COVID-19 infection on the male reproductive system are based on poorly designed, small sample size studies that provide inconclusive, contradictory results. Since there still exists a theoretical possibility of testicular damage and male infertilty as a result of the infection by COVID-19, males of reproductive age should be evaluated for gonadal function and semen analysis. With regard to the sexual transmission of the virus, there is not sufficient evidence to recommend asymptomatic couples to abstein from having sex in order to protect themselves from being infected by the virus. Additional studies are needed to understand the long-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 on male reproductive function, including male fertility potential and endocrine testicular function.

[Biochemical recurrence in patients with prostate cancer after radical treatment. Comparative study of prostatectomy vs. radiotherapy]. / Recidiva bioquímica en los pacientes con cáncer de próstata después de tratamiento radical. Estudio comparativo entre prostatectomía y radioterapia.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the biochemical relapse-free survival between radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer of low and intermediate recurrence risk. METHODS: A retrospective study of 435 patients with localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was performed in 65% of patients and radiotherapy was in 35%. The Kaplan-Meier Estimator was used to assess the biochemical relapse-free survival and long-rank test, Breslow and Tarone-Ware to evaluate the differences between the groups with confidence intervals at 95%. RESULTS: The median follow-up of the series was 60 months (3-106). Biochemical recurrence was diagnosed in 21% of patients: 22% of those were treated with prostatectomy and 19% with radiotherapy (p = 0.47). No significant differences were observed according to risk group (p = 0.60 in the low risk and p = 0.32 in the intermediate risk). Tree, five and seven-year actuarial biochemical recurrence-free survival for prostatectomy were 84%, 75%and 70%, while for radiotherapy were 97%, 84% and 64% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There are no significant differences in actuarial biochemical recurrence free survival in patients with localized prostate cancer of low and intermediate risk treated with prostatectomy or radiation therapy. Due to the crossing of the survival curves we do not rule out that with longer follow-up these results could be modified.