Percutaneous Nephrostomy versus Ureteral Stent for Severe Urinary Tract Infection with Obstructive Urolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background and Objectives: The European Association of Urology guidelines on urolithiasis highlight the limited evidence supporting the superiority of percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) over retrograde ureteral stent placement for the primary treatment of infected hydronephrosis secondary to urolithiasis. We, therefore, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effects of PCN and retrograde ureteral stent in patients with severe urinary tract infections secondary to obstructive urolithiasis. Materials and Methods: Meta-analyses were performed to compare four outcomes: time for the temperature to return to normal; time for the white blood cell (WBC) count to return to normal; hospital length of stay; and procedure success rate. After a full-text review, eight studies were identified as relevant and included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. Results: No significant difference was detected between PCN and retrograde ureteral stenting for the time for the temperature to return to normal (p = 0.13; mean difference [MD] = -0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.69, 0.21; I2 = 96%) or the time for the WBC count to return to normal (p = 0.24; MD = 0.46; 95% CI = -0.30, 1.21; I2 = 85%). There was also no significant difference between methods for hospital length of stay (p = 0.78; MD = 0.45; 95% CI = -2.78, 3.68; I2 = 96%) or procedure success rate (p = 0.76; odds ratio = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.34, 2.20; I2 = 47%). Conclusions: The clinical outcomes related to efficacy did not differ between PCN and retrograde ureteral stenting for severe urinary tract infection with obstructive urolithiasis. Thus, the choice between procedures depends mainly on the urologist's or patient's preferences.

Urolithiasis in Kidney Transplant Patients: A Multicenter KSER Research Series.

Background and Objectives: Urolithiasis occurrence is uncommon in kidney transplantation patients, though it has serious implications, including acute kidney injury in the transplanted kidney. This study investigates the leading causes of urolithiasis in kidney transplantation patients, the diagnostic process, and the outcomes of multimodal management. Materials and Methods: Data collection spanned from January 1997 to December 2021, involving kidney transplantation patients with urolithiasis from the database of the Korean Society of Endourology and Robotics (KSER) research committee. Analysis encompassed factors triggering urolithiasis, the diagnostic process, stone attributes, treatment methods, and outcomes. Results: Our analysis included 58 kidney transplantation patients with urolithiasis from eight medical centers. Of these patients, 37 were male and 4 had previous urolithiasis diagnoses. The mean age was 59.09 ± 10.70 years, with a mean duration from kidney transplantation to diagnosis of 76.26 ± 183.14 months. The most frequent method of stone detection was through asymptomatic routine check-ups (54.7%). Among the 58 patients, 51 underwent stone treatment. Notably, 95.3% of patients with ureter stones received treatment, a significantly higher rate than the 66.7% of patients with renal stones (p = 0.010). Success rates showed no significant differences between renal (70%) and ureter stone (78.0%) groups (p = 0.881). Conclusions: Urolithiasis in transplanted kidneys constitutes an acute condition requiring emergency intervention. Endo-urological interventions are effective for kidney transplantation patients with urolithiasis. To ensure prevention and early detection, diligent follow-up and routine imaging tests are necessary.

Training ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrostomy technique with porcine model.

PURPOSE: There is increasing interest in the use of ultrasound for endoscopic and percutaneous procedures. Access can be achieved without radiation exposure under ultrasound guidance. Our aim was to develop a porcine-based training model for ultrasound-guided percutaneous renal access that could also be personalized to a specific patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Severance Hospital approved the study protocol. An anesthetized pig was placed in the dorsal lithotomy position. For the nephrostomy puncture, a Chiba biopsy needle with an echo tip was used under ultrasound guidance. Eight residents and three consultants in urology participated. Puncture time was defined as the nephrostomy time to confirm the flow of irrigation via the needle. After training, satisfaction survey results for clinical usability and procedural difficulty were evaluated. RESULTS: The 5-point Likert scale satisfaction survey for clinical usability and procedural difficulty found mean results of 4.64 and 4.09 points, respectively. There were no differences between residents and consultants for either variable. For all participants combined, there was a significant difference for nephrostomy time between the first and second trials (278.8±70.6 s vs. 244.5±47.0 s; p=0.007). The between-trial difference was greater for residents (291.5±71.2 s vs. 259.1±41.9 s; p=0.039). The difference for the consultant was not significant (245.0±69.4 s vs. 205.7±42.5 s; p=0.250). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a porcine-based ultrasound-guided nephrostomy puncture training model. Satisfaction survey results indicated high clinical usability and procedural difficulty. For nephrostomy time, the model was more effective for urology residents than for consultants.

2023 Korean sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines for Mycoplasma genitalium by KAUTII.

The Korean Association of Urogenital Tract Infection and Inflammation and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency updated the Korean sexually transmitted infections (STIs) guidelines to respond to the changing epidemiologic trends, evolving scientific evidence, and advances in laboratory diagnostics and research. The main recommendations in the Mycoplasma genitalium infection parts of the Korean STIs guidelines 2023 revision are as follows: 1) For initial treatment: azithromycin 500 mg orally in a single dose, then 250 mg once daily for 4 days. 2) In case of treatment failure or recurrence, a macrolide susceptibility/resistance test is required, when susceptibility/resistance test is not feasible, doxycycline or minocycline 100 mg orally twice daily for 7 days, followed by azithromycin 1 g orally on the first day, then azithromycin 500 mg orally once daily for 3 days and then a test-of-cure should be considered 3 weeks after completion of therapy. 3) In case of macrolide sensitivity, doxycycline or minocycline 100 mg orally twice daily for 7 days, followed by azithromycin 1 g orally initial dose, then azithromycin 500 mg orally once daily for 3 days. 4) In case of macrolide resistance, doxycycline or minocycline 100 mg orally twice daily for 7 days, followed by moxifloxacin 400 mg orally once daily for 7 days. In the Korean STIs guideline 2023, macrolide resistance-guided antimicrobial therapy was emphasized due to the increased prevalence of macrolide resistance worldwide. Therefore, in case of treatment failure or recurrence, a macrolide susceptibility/resistance test is required.

Korean Society of Endourology and Robotics (KSER) recommendation on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of urolithiasis.

This article provides evidence-based recommendations and expert opinions to aid urologists in making optimal decisions regarding managing urolithiasis in various clinical scenarios. The most frequently asked questions by urologists in their clinical practice have been collected and answered in the form of FAQs; based on the latest evidence and expert opinions. The natural history of urolithiasis is divided into active treatment and silent phases, with the active treatment stage divided into typical and special situations and peri-treatment management. The authors address 28 key questions, offering practical guidance for the proper diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of urolithiasis in clinical practice. This article is expected to be served as a valuable resource for urologists.

Cytoreductive prostatectomy may improve oncological outcomes in patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

The oncologic outcomes of cytoreductive prostatectomy (CRP) in oligometastatic prostate cancer (OmPCa) are still controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the oncologic outcome of CRP in OmPCa. OVID-Medline, OVID-Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify eligible studies published before January 2023. A total of 11 studies (929 patients), 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 10 non-RCT studies, were included in the final analysis. RCT and non-RCT were further analyzed separately. End points were progression-free-survival (PFS), time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPCa), cancer-specific-survival (CSS) and overall-survival (OS). It was analyzed using hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In PFS, in RCT, HR=0.43 (CIs=0.27-0.69) was shown statistically significant, but in non-RCTs, HR=0.50 (CIs=0.20-1.25), there was no statistical difference. And, in time to CRPCa was statistically significant in the CRP group in all analyses (RCT; HR=0.44; CIs=0.29-0.67) (non-RCTs; HR=0.64; CIs=0.47-0.88). Next, CSS was not statistically different between the two groups (HR=0.63; CIs=0.37-1.05). Finally, OS showed better results in the CRP group in all analyses (RCT; HR=0.44; CIs=0.26-0.76) (non-RCTs; HR=0.59; CIs=0.37-0.93). Patients who received CRP in OmPCa showed better oncologic outcomes compared to controls. Notably, time to CRPC and OS showed significantly improved compared with control. We recommend that experienced urologists who are capable of managing complications consider CRP as a strategy to achieve good oncological outcomes in OmPCa. However, since most of the included studies are non-RCT studies, caution should be exercised in interpreting the results.

Impact of Preoperative Ureteral Stenting in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Urolithiasis.

Background and Objectives: Ureteral stent insertion passively dilates the ureter. Therefore, it is sometimes used preoperatively before flexible ureterorenoscopy to make the ureter more accessible and facilitate urolithiasis passage, especially when ureteroscopic access has failed or when the ureter is expected to be tight. However, it may cause stent-related discomfort and complications. This study aimed to assess the effect of ureteral stenting prior to retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Materials and Methods: Data from patients who underwent unilateral RIRS for renal stone with the use of a ureteral access sheath from January 2016 to May 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient characteristics, including age, sex, BMI, presence of hydronephrosis, and treated side, were recorded. Stone characteristics in terms of maximal stone length, modified Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity score, and stone composition were evaluated. Surgical outcomes, including operative time, complication rate, and stone-free rate, were compared between two groups divided by whether preoperative stenting was performed. Results: Of the 260 patients enrolled in this study, 106 patients had no preoperative stenting (stentless group), and 154 patients had stenting (stenting group). Patient characteristics except for the presence of hydronephrosis and stone composition were not statistically different between the two groups. In surgical outcomes, the stone-free rate was not statistically different between the two groups (p = 0.901); however, the operation time for the stenting group was longer than that of the stentless group (44.8 ± 24.2 vs. 36.1 ± 17.6 min; p = 0.001). There were no differences in the complication rate between the two groups (p = 0.523). Conclusions: Among surgical outcomes for RIRS with a ureteral access sheath, preoperative ureteral stenting does not provide a significant advantage over non-stenting with respect to the stone-free rate and complication rate.

Update on the Effect of the Urinary Microbiome on Urolithiasis.

Microbiota are ecological communities of commensal, symbiotic, and pathogenic microorganisms. The microbiome could be involved in kidney stone formation through hyperoxaluria and calcium oxalate supersaturation, biofilm formation and aggregation, and urothelial injury. Bacteria bind to calcium oxalate crystals, which causes pyelonephritis and leads to changes in nephrons to form Randall's plaque. The urinary tract microbiome, but not the gut microbiome, can be distinguished between cohorts with urinary stone disease (USD) and those without a history of the disease. In the urine microbiome, the role is known of urease-producing bacteria (Proteus mirabilis, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Providencia stuartii, Serratia marcescens, and Morganella morganii) in stone formation. Calcium oxalate crystals were generated in the presence of two uropathogenic bacteria (Escherichia coli and K. pneumoniae). Non-uropathogenic bacteria (S. aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae) exhibit calcium oxalate lithogenic effects. The taxa Lactobacilli and Enterobacteriaceae best distinguished the healthy cohort from the USD cohort, respectively. Standardization is needed in urine microbiome research for urolithiasis. Inadequate standardization and design of urinary microbiome research on urolithiasis have hampered the generalizability of results and diminished their impact on clinical practice.

Silodosin versus Tamsulosin for Medical Expulsive Therapy of Ureteral Stones: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the therapeutic effects and safety profiles of silodosin and tamsulosin for medical expulsive therapy (MET) of ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify articles published before July 2022 that described randomized controlled trials comparing silodosin and tamsulosin for MET of ureteral stones. Endpoints were stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, and total complication rate. Results: In total, 14 studies were included in our analysis. The size of ureteral stones was <1 cm. Compared with tamsulosin, silodosin resulted in a significantly higher stone expulsion rate (p < 0.01, odds ratio (OR) = 2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.91 to 3.06, I2 = 0%) and significantly shorter stone expulsion time (p < 0.01, mean difference = −3.04, 95% CI = −4.46 to −1.63, I2 = 89%). The total complication rate did not significantly differ between silodosin and tamsulosin (p = 0.33, OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.52, I2 = 7%). Conclusions: Compared with tamsulosin, silodosin resulted in significantly better expulsion of ureteral stones <1 cm. The total complication rate did not significantly differ between silodosin and tamsulosin. Thus, silodosin may be superior to tamsulosin for MET of ureter stones <1 cm.

Surveillance versus Adjuvant Treatment with Chemotherapy or Radiotherapy for Stage I Seminoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis According to EAU COVID-19 Recommendations.

Background and Objectives: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Office Rapid Reaction Group (GORRG) recommended that patients with clinical stage I (CSI) seminoma be offered active surveillance (AS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of AS versus adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy or radiotherapy for improving the overall survival (OS) of CSI seminoma patients. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. The primary outcome was 5-year OS, and the secondary outcome was the 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS). The outcomes were analyzed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 14 studies were included. Overall, the quality scores were relatively high, and little publication bias was noted. In terms of the 5-year OS, 7 studies were analyzed; there was no significant difference between AS and adjuvant treatment (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.41−2.39; p = 0.97). In terms of 5-year RFS, 12 studies were analyzed. Adjuvant treatment reduced the risk of 5-year recurrence by 85% compared with AS (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.08−0.26; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In terms of the OS in CSI seminoma patients, no intergroup difference was noted, so it is reasonable to offer AS, as recommended by the EAU GORRG until the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, since there is a large intergroup difference in the recurrence rate, further research on the long-term (>5 years) outcomes is warranted.

In Vivo Feasibility Test of a New Flexible Ureteroscopic Robotic System, easyUretero, for Renal Stone Retrieval in a Porcine Model.

PURPOSE: Using a new robotic endoscopic platform system developed for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) called easyUretero (ROEN Surgical Inc.), we evaluated the feasibility and safety of renal stone retrieval in a porcine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six female pigs were used for our in vivo study. First, 0.3-cm-sized phantom stones were inserted into the kidneys of each pig via the ureteral access sheath. Next, renal stone retrieval was attempted using manual RIRS in three pigs and robotic RIRS in three pigs. Three surgeons performed extraction of 10 stones in each session. RESULTS: The mean stone retrieval time by manual RIRS was significantly shorter than that by robotic RIRS (399.9±185.4 sec vs. 1127.6±374.5 sec, p=0.001). In contrast, the questionnaire regarding usability showed high satisfaction in the surgeons' fatigue category for surgeons using robotic RIRS. The radiation exposure dose was also lower in robotic RIRS than in manual RIRS (0.14 µSv vs. 45.5 µSv). Postoperative ureteral injury assessment revealed Grade 0 in manual RIRS cases and Grades 0, 1, and 2 in robotic RIRS cases. CONCLUSION: The easyUretero system is a new robotic RIRS system that was developed in Korea. The results of the present study suggest that using easyUretero for stone retrieval during RIRS is safe and ergonomic.

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background and Objectives: Disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been widely used because of their cost-effectiveness and higher sterility potential compared with reusable flexible ureteroscopes. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes and complication rates in patients who undergo reusable or disposable flexible ureteroscopic stone surgeries (fURS) for urinary stone disease. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022331291). Clinical trials comparing reusable and disposable fURS for stone disease were found from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science up to March 2022. Participants were patients with upper urinary tract stones; the interventions were reusable or disposable fURS. Outcomes, including stone-free rate, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate, were compared for analysis. Results: Overall, 111 studies were identified, but after removing duplicate studies, 75 studies remained. Thirty-two of these studies were excluded. Of the 43 screened studies, 11 met the eligibility criteria. There was no difference in the stone-free rate (SFR) between disposable and reusable fURS (p = 0.14; OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.04). For operation time, no difference was identified between reusable and disposable fURS groups (p = 0.12; MD = -5.31; 95% CI, -12.08 to 1.46). For hospital stay, there was also no difference between the two groups (p = 0.61; MD = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.10). There was no significant difference in complication rate between the two groups (p = 0.85; OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.61). Conclusions: There were no differences in the SFR, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate between reusable and disposable fURS. Disposable fURS may be a comparable alternative to reusable fURS.

Effects of intravesical BCG maintenance therapy duration on recurrence rate in high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC): Systematic review and network meta-analysis according to EAU COVID-19 recommendations.

PURPOSE: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommended that courses of intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy lasting more than 1 year could be safely terminated for patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Thus, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to EAU's COVID-19 recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We conducted a network meta-analysis of recurrence rate in patients with NMIBC receiving induction therapy (M0) and those receiving maintenance therapy lasting 1 year (M1) and more than 1 year (M2). RESULTS: Nineteen studies of 3,957 patients were included for the network meta-analysis. In a node-split forest plot using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) modeling, there were no differences between the M1 and M2 groups in recurrence rate [odds ratio (OR) 0.95 (0.73-1.2)]. However, recurrence rate in the M0 group was higher than that in the M1 [OR 1.9 (1.5-2.5)] and M2 [OR 2.0 (1.7-2.4)] groups. P-score tests using frequentist inference to rank the treatments in the network demonstrated that the therapy used in the M2 group (P-score 0.8701) was superior to that used in the M1 (P-score 0.6299) and M0 groups (P-score 0). In rank-probability tests using MCMC modeling, the M2 group showed the highest rank, followed by the M1 and M0 groups. CONCLUSION: In the network meta-analysis, there were no differences between those receiving BCG maintenance therapies in terms of recurrence rate. In the rank tests, therapy lasting more than 1-year appears to be most effective. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 1-year maintenance therapy can be used, but after the COVID-19 pandemic, therapy lasting more than 1-year could be beneficial.

Feasibility of Laser Lithotripsy for Midsize Stones Using Robotic Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery System easyUretero in a Porcine Model.

Purpose: To test the safety and feasibility of laser lithotripsy for midsize renal stones using a newly developed robotic retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) system (easyUretero) in a porcine model. Materials and Methods: Three urologic surgeons representing three different RIRS experience levels (beginner, intermediate, and expert) participated. Four female pigs (aged 6 months) underwent manual or robotic RIRS. Under general anesthesia, a nephrostomy tract was created ventrally, and calcium stones (diameter, 1.0-1.5 cm) were inserted at renal calices. For manual RIRS, surgeons operated a flexible ureteroscope. For robotic RIRS, the ureteroscope was attached to the robotic slave device. The Auriga XL™ Holmium laser was used for lithotripsy. Lasering and stone retrieval time were measured. Kidneys and ureters were inspected for injury at the end of each session. Results: For the expert, both lasering and stone retrieval by manual RIRS were quicker than by robotic RIRS (22.8 ± 11.0 s/stone vs 234.5 ± 102.5 s/stone, p = 0.02; 41.5 ± 0.5 s/stone vs 79.3 ± 8.1 s/stone, p = 0.02). For the intermediate and beginner, lasering and stone retrieval times were not significantly different between manual and robotic procedures (127.8 ± 93.2 s/stone vs 284.8 ± 112.3 s/stone, p = 0.08; 86.0 ± 30.5 s/stone vs 84.1 ± 21.4 s/stone, p = 0.92). All stones were removed. Grade 1 ureteral and renal injuries occurred in both manual RIRS and robotic RIRS. Conclusions: The laser lithotripsy using the easyUretero robotic system is safe and feasible in a porcine model, even for less-experienced surgeons.

The First 100 Cases of Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery in Korea: Matched Cohort Analyses versus Shock-Wave Lithotripsy.

PURPOSE: This study presents our initial experience with endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) for large renal stones and compares the results of a propensity score-matched cohort of patients undergoing shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 adults underwent ECIRS for renal stones between August 2017 and January 2019. For comparison, 2172 patients who underwent a first session of SWL between January 2005 and May 2018 were included in the SWL cohort. Propensity score matching was performed using maximal stone length (MSL), mean stone density (MSD), and stone heterogeneity index (SHI) scores. Stone-free rate (SFR) and success rate were compared between ECIRS and SWL. RESULTS: In the ECIRS group, the mean MSL, mean MSD, and mean SHI were 28.7±15.2 mm, 1013.9±360.0 Hounsfield units (HU), 209.4±104.0 HU, respectively. The SFR was 70%, and the success rate was 82.0% in this group. Although the ECIRS group had larger, harder, and more homogeneous stones than the SWL group, ECIRS showed a higher SFR and success rate than SWL. After propensity-score matching, SFR and success rate remained higher with ECIRS than with SWL (both, p<0.001). In multivariate logistic regression, smaller stone size [odds ratio (OR): 0.947, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.913-0.979, p=0.002] and lower Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity score (OR: 0.759, 95% CI: 0.610-0.935, p=0.011) were independent predictors of successful ECIRS. CONCLUSION: ECIRS showed a higher SFR and success rate than SWL for large renal stones. Smaller stone size and lower complexity of stones were associated with a higher likelihood of successful ECIRS.

Outcomes of Retzius-sparing versus conventional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A KSER update series systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy(RARP) is widely used to surgically treat of localized prostate cancer. Among RARP, retzius-sparing techniques(RS-RARP) are implemented through douglas pouch, not the existing conventional approach(C-RARP). We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including recent published papers. MATERIALS & METHODS: Systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guideline. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched up to August 2021. We conducted meta-analysis as follows; Participants, patients with biopsy-proven PCa; Interventions, Patients underwent C-RARP or RS-RALP; Outcomes, comparison of continence recovery rate, positive surgical margins(PSM), complication, operation time and estimated blood loss(EBL) included for analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with a total of 2917 patients were included for meta-analysis. Among them, three were randomized controlled trials (RCT) studies and the rest were non-RCT studies. Incontinence was analyzed with zero pad and safety pad, respectively. There showed a statistically significant advantage for RS-RARP in terms of continence recovery at 1 month(0 pad; OR 0.28, (0.16-0.47), safety-pad; OR 0.12 (0.07-0.22), p<0.001), as well as at 3 months(0 pad; OR 0.31 (0.18-0.53), safety-pad; OR 0.23 (0.14-0.40) p<0.001), 6 months(0 pad; OR 0.29 (0.17-0.51), safety-pad; OR 0.13 (0.06-0.27), p<0.001). And after 12 months, RS-RARP showed better results only in the safety-pad(0 pad; OR 0.64 (0.35-1.18), p = 0.15, safety-pad; OR 0.12 (0.04-0.36), p<0.001). In PSM, there was no statistical difference between two group at overall stage, but RS-RARP was observed to be higher than C-RARP in pT3 subgroup analysis(OR 0.74 (0.55-0.99), p = 0.047) (Fig 1). Whereas, there was no significant difference between the two groups in complication, operation time, and EBL. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed that RS-RARP is superior about early continence recovery than C-RARP. However, RS-RARP showed relatively high PSM in locally advanced PCa of pT3 or above. Therefore, although RS-RARP has few advantages about functional outcomes, we think that caution should be exercised when approaching patients with high-risk local diseases.

Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival of patients with T2-4aN0M0 bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis according to EAU COVID-19 recommendation.

PURPOSE: In the context of the COVID-19 outbreak, the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines Rapid Reaction Group provided recommendations to manage muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) based on priority levels: neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) should be avoided for patients with T2-3N0M0 MIBC. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of NAC compared with radical cystectomy (RC) alone in improving the overall survival (OS) of patients with T2-4aN0M0 MIBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. The primary outcome was OS of patients with T2-4aN0M0 MIBC, and the secondary outcome was OS of patients with only T2N0M0 MIBC. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, the quality of all studies was relatively high, and little publication bias was demonstrated. The OS was significantly better in the NAC with RC group than in RC alone (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92; p = 0.002). A subgroup analysis was performed on only patients with T2N0M0 MIBC, and five studies were included. There was no difference in the OS between the NAC with RC and the RC alone groups (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01 p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: As recommended by the EAU guidelines Rapid Reaction Group, patients with T2N0M0 MIBC should strongly consider omitting NAC until the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether to omit NAC in T3-4aN0M0 MIBC needs further discussion, and studies targeting only T2-3N0M0 MIBC are expected to proceed further.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: A single dose of preventive antibiotics is known to be sufficient to reduce the rate of infection-related complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). However, some studies reported that the extended dose showed lower complications for high-risk groups. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing single- and extended-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for PCNL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant studies that compared single- and extended-dose antibiotic prophylactic therapies were identified. Articles were selected from PubMed, EMBASE, KoreaMed, and Google Scholar up to September 2021. Fever and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) were compared by meta-analysis. A subgroup analysis was performed according to the degree of risk to the patient. RESULTS: A total of 10 articles were included in this study. There were no significant differences between single dose and extended dose in the rate of fever [p = 0.93, OR = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-2.13, I2 = 64%]. Extended dose showed lower rate of SIRS compared to single dose (p = 0.0005, OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.30-2.53, I2 = 53%); in the subgroup analysis, extended dose also showed lower rates of SIRS compared to single dose in high-risk patients (p <0.0001, OR = 3.53, 95% CI 1.91-6.54, I2 = 36%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our meta-analysis showed that single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis can be effective for PCNL, but extended-dose antibiotics can be required in high-risk patients to reduce post-PCNL infection-related complications.

Comparison of Ultra-Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis from the KSER Update Series.

Miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones have been developed to overcome the invasive disadvantages of PCNL. We aimed to compare the therapeutic effect and safety of ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMPCNL) and RIRS for renal stones using an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched clinical trials comparing UMPCNL and RIRS for renal stones using the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases up to October 2021. Seven studies were included in the current study. The renal stone size was 10-20 mm in three studies, 10-25 mm in one study, 10-35 mm in two studies, and not specified in one study. The stone-free rate of UMPCNL was higher than that of RIRS (p = 0.02; odds ratio (OR) = 2.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.12, 3.61). The complication rate showed no significant difference between UMPCNL and RIRS (p = 0.48; OR = 1.20; 95% CI = 0.73, 1.98). Regarding the operative time, UMPCNL was shorter than RIRS (p = 0.005; weighted mean difference (WMD) = -15.63; 95% CI = -26.60, -4.67). The hospital stay of UMPCNL was longer than that of RIRS (p = 0.0004; WMD = 1.48; 95% CI = 0.66, 2.31). UMPCNL showed higher efficacy than RIRS and similar safety to RIRS. UMPCNL may be a useful therapeutic option for moderate-sized renal stones.

A Systematic Review on Comparative Analyses between Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Shock-Wave Lithotripsy for Ureter Stone According to Stone Size.

Background and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the treatment outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) according to the ureteral stone size. Materials and Methods: In this systematic review, relevant articles that compared SWL and URSL for treatment of ureteral stones were identified. Articles were selected from four English databases including Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of controlled Trials (Central), and Google Scholar. A quality assessment was carried out by our researchers independently using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A total of 1325 studies were identified, but after removing duplicates, there remained 733 studies. Of these studies, 439 were excluded, 294 were screened, and 18 met the study eligibility criteria. Results: In randomized control trial (RCT) studies, URSL showed significantly higher SFR than SWL (p < 0.01, OR= 0.40, 95% CI 0.30-0.55, I² = 29%). The same results were shown in sub-group analysis according to the size of the stone (<1 cm: p < 0.01, OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25-0.63; >1 cm: p < 0.01, OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.74, I² = 55%; not specified: p < 0.01, OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.72, I² = 70%). In the non-RCT studies, the effectiveness of the URSL was significantly superior to that of SWL (p < 0.01, OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52, I² = 83%). Retreatment rate was significantly lower in URSL than in SWL regardless of stone size (p < 0.01, OR = 10.22, 95% CI 6.76-15.43, I² = 54%). Conclusions: Meta-analysis results show that SFR was higher than SWL in URSL and that URSL was superior to SWL in retreatment rate. However, more randomized trials are required to identify definitive conclusions.