Long-term experiences with high-energy shock wave therapy in the management chronic phase Peyronie's disease using two different electromagnetic lithotripters.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy represents one option for the non-surgical management of Peyronie's disease. Despite promising results, several questions are still pending. We want to present the long-term results of a retrospective study using high-energy extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We evaluated retrospectively 110 patients treated between 1996 and 2020 at the Department of Urology, SLK Kliniken Heilbronn for chronic phase Peyronie's disease using two electromagnetic lithotripters (Siemens Lithostar Plus Overhead Module, Siemens Lithoskop) applying high-energy shock waves under local anesthesia and sonographic or fluoroscopic control. A standardized questionnaire focused on the change in pain, curvature, sexual function and the need of penile surgery. RESULTS: In 85 of the 110 patients (mean age 54 years) we had sufficient data for evaluation. The median follow-up was 228 (6-288) months. There were no significant complications. Pain reduction was achieved in all patients, 65 (76%) patients were free of pain. Improvement of penile curvature was achieved in 43 patients (51%) ranging from 25% improvement (deflected angle < 30°) to 95% (angle 30-60°). 59 patients (69%) reported problems with sexual intercourse, 40 of those (68%) reported improvement. Only 9 (10.5%) patients underwent surgical correction. We did not observe any significant differences between both electromagnetic devices with stable long-term results. CONCLUSIONS: High-energy shock wave therapy delivered by two standard electromagnetic lithotripters is safe and efficient providing stable long-term results. In cases with significant plaque formation, the concept of high-energy ESWT should be considered in future studies.

[COVID-19 in european urology : Which lessons have we learned?] / COVID-19 in der europäischen Urologie : Was haben wir bisher gelernt?

The coronavirus has challenged all medical systems worldwide. Herein both waves of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) in spring and autumn 2020 differ principally. Whereas Europe was hit by the first wave more or less unprepared, which was aggravated by the high virulence of COVID-19, the second wave is characterized by a much higher contagiosity of the virus with very high incidences. On the other hand the virus has attenuated, which is reflected by the significantly lower incidence-related mortality rate. However, the overall increasing number of infected patients represents again a great challenge for the medical management of the disease. France and Spain are doing better in comparison to Germany and Italy this time. The absolute number of deaths per week is higher than during the peak of the first wave. However, urologists in these countries have also experienced greater restrictions in their activities in the second shutdown than in Germany, where there is only a reduction of beds to between 75 and 90%. Mostly all levels are operated. Of importance for Germany, however, is the plateau on a high level for several weeks probably due to the reduced efficacy of a light lock-down. This finally resulted in a total lock-down in mid-December 2020. Subsequently in Germany some hospitals are also reaching their limits with similar consequences for the departments of urology facing a 50% reduction of beds and operating only level III and IV indications. Nevertheless, the management of urologic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is carried out in Europa on a high standard. Therefor the risk of secondary harm to our patients is expected to be rather minimal in the long run.

[Robotics and intraoperative navigation]. / Robotik und intraoperative Navigation.

Urology has always been closely linked to technological progress. In the last few decades, we have witnessed increasing implementation of various technologies and innovations in subdisciplines of urology. While conventional laparoscopy is increasingly being replaced by robot-assisted procedures and the introduction of new robotic systems from various manufactures will continue for years, the field of endourolgy is still not dominated by robotic systems. However, new systems (e.g., autonomous, robot-controlled aquablation of the prostate) are becoming increasingly popular and numerous development projects will also probably change clinical care in coming years. In addition, further advancements in the combination of robotics with intraoperative navigation through the integration of imaging and augmented-reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technology can be expected. This combination of navigation and robotic technology is already being used successfully in prostate biopsy.

[Robots in urology-an analysis of current and future devices]. / Der Roboter in der Urologie ­ eine Analyse aktueller und zukünftiger Gerätegenerationen.

The monopoly of robotic surgical devices of the last 15 years will end in 2019 when key patents of Intuitive Surgical expire. Thus, we can expect an interesting competitive situation in the coming years. Based on personal experience with robot-assisted surgery since 2001, we conducted a search of the current literature together with a search of relevant patents in this field. Finally, we visited the websites of manufacturers of existing and future robotic surgical devices with possible applications in urology. Such devices have to prove that they meet the high-quality standard of the current Da Vinci series (SI, X, XI). For this purpose, we propose to classify the main features of the different devices, such as type of console (closed/open), arrangement of robotic arms (single/multiple carts/attached to operating room table), type of three-dimensional videosystem (by mirror/ocular/using polarizing glasses) or degrees of freedom (DOF) of end effectors (5 vs. 7 DOF). In the meantime, there are also robotic systems used in endourology: Avicenna Roboflex® and the AquaBeam® system for robot-assisted aquablation therapy of the prostate. While Roboflex® improves the ergonomics of flexible ureteroscopy-similar to the Da Vinci robot, AquaBeam® may for the first time eliminate the surgeon, who might only be needed to manage severe postoperative bleeding.

[Bladder neck sclerosis following prostate surgery : Which therapy when?] / Blasenhalssklerose nach Prostataeingriffen : Wann welche Therapie?

Secondary bladder neck sclerosis represents one of the more frequent complications following endoscopic, open, and other forms of minimally invasive prostate surgery. Therapeutic decisions depend on the type of previous intervention (e.g., radical prostatectomy, TURP, HoLEP, radiotherapy, HIFU) and on associated complications (e.g., incontinence, fistula). Primary treatment in most cases represents an endoscopic bilateral incision. No specific advantages of any type of the applied energy (i.e., mono-/bipolar HF current, cold incision, holmium/thulium YAG laser) could be documented. Adjuvant measures such as injection of corticosteroids or mitomycin C have not been helpful in clinical routine. In case of first recurrence, a transurethral monopolar or bipolar resection can usually be performed. Recently, the ablation of the scared tissue using bipolar vaporization has been recommended providing slightly better long-term results. Thereafter, surgical reconstruction is strongly recommended using an open, laparoscopic, or robot-assisted approach. Depending on the extent of the bladder neck sclerosis and the underlying prostate surgery, a Y-V/T-plasty, urethral reanastomosis, or even a radical prostatectomy with new urethravesical anastomosis should be performed. Stent implantation should be reserved for patients who are not suitable for surgery. The final palliative measure is a cystectomy with urinary diversion or a (continent) cystostomy.

CT-guided bipolar and multipolar radiofrequency ablation (RF ablation) of renal cell carcinoma: specific technical aspects and clinical results.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of CT-guided bipolar and multipolar radiofrequency ablation (RF ablation) of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and to analyze specific technical aspects between both technologies. METHODS: We included 22 consecutive patients (3 women; age 74.2 ± 8.6 years) after 28 CT-guided bipolar or multipolar RF ablations of 28 RCCs (diameter 2.5 ± 0.8 cm). Procedures were performed with a commercially available RF system (Celon AG Olympus, Berlin, Germany). Technical aspects of RF ablation procedures (ablation mode [bipolar or multipolar], number of applicators and ablation cycles, overall ablation time and deployed energy, and technical success rate) were analyzed. Clinical results (local recurrence-free survival and local tumor control rate, renal function [glomerular filtration rate (GFR)]) and complication rates were evaluated. RESULTS: Bipolar RF ablation was performed in 12 procedures and multipolar RF ablation in 16 procedures (2 applicators in 14 procedures and 3 applicators in 2 procedures). One ablation cycle was performed in 15 procedures and two ablation cycles in 13 procedures. Overall ablation time and deployed energy were 35.0 ± 13.6 min and 43.7 ± 17.9 kJ. Technical success rate was 100 %. Major and minor complication rates were 4 and 14 %. At an imaging follow-up of 15.2 ± 8.8 months, local recurrence-free survival was 14.4 ± 8.8 months and local tumor control rate was 93 %. GFR did not deteriorate after RF ablation (50.8 ± 16.6 ml/min/1.73 m(2) before RF ablation vs. 47.2 ± 11.9 ml/min/1.73 m(2) after RF ablation; not significant). CONCLUSIONS: CT-guided bipolar and multipolar RF ablation of RCC has a high rate of clinical success and low complication rates. At short-term follow-up, clinical efficacy is high without deterioration of the renal function.

[Radical cystectomy - pro laparoscopic]. / Radikale Zystektomie - pro laparoskopisch.

Although the technical feasibility of laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) has been proven and the procedure has been accepted in the EAU guidelines 2011 as a valid alternative, its actual position has to be determined. On the one hand the advantages of LRC (less blood loss, lower transfusion rates, shorter analgesia time) have been proven in retrospective studies; however, the technical difficulties of purely laparoscopic urinary diversion result in very long operating times and in cases of a laparoscopic-assisted creation of a neobladder, the question of the advantage of this approach remains doubtful. Despite case reports of port metastases and peritoneal carcinosis following laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical cystectomy, there is no difference in terms of oncological long-term data (up to 10 years) between laparoscopy and open surgery performed at centres of excellence. Evidently, the curative options for the patients do not depend on the type of surgery (open versus minimally invasive) but on the efficacy of adjuvant treatment strategies (polychemotherapy). Currently it is believed that LRC should be considered for patients with low risk of progression (pT1-2). The final position of laparoscopic radical cystectomy can only be evaluated in a multicentric randomized controlled trial.