Primary Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Clinical Stage II A/B Seminomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy and radiation therapy are considered standard treatments for stage II seminoma patients; however, these therapies are associated with long-term toxicities. Recently, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection has emerged as an alternative strategy, and the first three phase II trials were published in 2023 with promising results. The present study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this surgery as an alternative treatment for stage IIA/B seminoma patients. PURPOSE: Seminomas are the most common testicular tumors, often affecting young adult males. Standard treatments for stage II seminomas include chemotherapy and radiation therapy, but these therapies are associated with long-term toxicities. Thus, identifying alternative strategies is paramount. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to appraise the efficacy and safety of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) for treating this condition. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies evaluating RPLND as a primary treatment for stage II A/B seminomas. Using a random-effects model, single proportion and means and pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates with hazard rates and 95% CI were calculated. RESULTS: Seven studies were included, comprising 331 males with stage II seminomas. In the pooled analysis, the recurrence rate was 17.69% (95% CI 12.31-24.75), and the 2-year RFS rate was 81% (95% CI 0.77-0.86). The complication rate was 9.16% (95% CI 6.16-13.42), the Clavien-Dindo > 2 complication rate was 8.83% (95% CI 5.76-13.31), and the retrograde ejaculation rate was 7.01% (95% CI 3.54-13.40). The median operative time was 174.68 min (95% CI 122.17-249.76 min), median blood loss was 105.91 mL (95% CI 46.89-239.22 mL), and patients with no evidence of lymph node involvement ranged from 0-16%. CONCLUSIONS: Primary RPLNDs for treating stage IIA/B seminomas have favorable RFS rates, with low complication and recurrence rates. These findings provide evidence that this surgery is a viable alternative therapy for these patients.

Preoperative α1-Blockers Impact on Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Ureteroscopy with Ureteral Access Sheaths: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: The use of a ureteral access sheath (UAS) during ureteroscopy (URS) has been associated with the risk for ureteral injuries. Preoperative administration of α1-blockers presents a potential mitigator of such lesions by inducing ureteral relaxation, which may also contribute to improving other surgical outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies comparing preoperative α1-blockers administration vs its non-use in adult patients without pre-stenting undergoing URS. Binary outcomes were evaluated using risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was measured with the Cochran's Q test, I2 statistics, and prediction intervals (PIs). A DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was utilized for all outcomes. Results: Eleven studies encompassing 1074 patients undergoing URS were included, of whom 522 (48.60%) received α1-blockers before the procedure. Preoperative α1-blockers were associated with a reduction in significant ureteral injuries (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.17-0.53; I2 = 6%; PI 0.10-0.88) and an increase in mean successful UAS insertion (OR 2.14; 95% CI 1.08-4.23; I2 = 23%; PI 0.51-8.93). In patients undergoing exclusively ureteroscopy lithotripsy (URSL), the medications also reduced total complications (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.46-0.84; I2 = 0%) and complications graded Clavien-Dindo III or higher (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.04-0.69; I2 = 0%), but no significant difference between groups was found in the stone-free rate (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.86-1.40; I2 = 91%; PI 0.47-2.59). Conclusion: Preoperative α1-blockers were linked to a decrease in significant ureteral injuries with UAS use and fewer complications during URSL procedures. However, their impact on the successful insertion of a UAS remains uncertain. Consideration of administering preoperative α1-blockers in non-stented adult patients undergoing URS with UAS is advisable.