Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundComplete mesocolic excision (CME) for right colon cancers has traditionally been an open procedure. Surgical adoption of minimal access CME remains limited due to the technical challenges, training gaps and lack of level-1 data for proven benefits. Currently there is limited published data regarding the clinical results with the use of robotic CME surgery. Aim To report our experience, results and techniques, highlighting a clinical and oncological results and midterm oncological outcomes for robotic CME.AimTo report our experience, results and techniques, highlighting a clinical and oncological results and midterm oncological outcomes for robotic CME.MethodsAll patients undergoing standardised robotic CME technique with SMV first approach between January 2015 and September 2019 were included in this retrospective review of a prospectively collected database. Patient demographics, operative data and clinical and oncological outcomes were recorded.ResultsSeventy-seven robotic CME resections for right colonic cancers were performed over a 4-year period. Median operative time was 180 (128–454) min and perioperative blood loss was 10 (10–50) ml. There were 25 patients who had previous abdominal surgery. Median postoperative hospital stay was 5 (3–18) days. There was no conversion to open surgery in this series. Median lymph node count was 30 (10–60). Three (4%) patients had R1 resection. There was one (1%) local recurrence in stage III disease and 4(5%) distal recurrence in stage II and stage III. There was no 30- or 90-day mortality. Three-year disease-free survival was 100%, 91.7% and 92% for stages I, II and III, respectively. Overall survival was 94%.ConclusionsRobotic CME is feasible, effective and safe. Good oncological results and improved survival are seen in this cohort of patients with a standardised approach to robotic CME.

: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a progressive, androgen-dependent condition driven by dihydrotestosterone (DHT). 5α-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs), including finasteride and dutasteride, target this pathway and provide disease-modifying effects. : This narrative review summarizes evidence from randomized trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies evaluating the efficacy, timing, and safety of 5-ARIs in the management of LUTS due to BPH. : 5-ARI therapy reduces prostate volume by 18-28% and serum PSA by approximately 50% within 6-12 months. Landmark trials (MTOPS, CombAT) demonstrate significant reductions in acute urinary retention (AUR) and BPH-related surgery (>50% RR reduction). Combination therapy with α-blockers provides superior symptom control and greater prevention of clinical progression, particularly in men with prostate volume ≥ 30-40 mL or PSA ≥ 1.5 ng/mL. Early initiation of combination therapy improves long-term outcomes, while α-blocker withdrawal may be feasible in selected patients. Adverse events are mainly sexual, with emerging data suggesting a possible association with depression. : 5-ARIs are central to BPH management, offering sustained clinical benefits and prevention of progression. Optimal outcomes depend on appropriate patient selection, early treatment in high-risk individuals, and individualized long-term strategies.

Background: Multiple systematic reviews explore the effect of phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors on erectile dysfunction (ED), with each study addressing specific outcomes. However, physicians and policymakers require a holistic approach of this topic. Objective: To summarize the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of PDE5 inhibitors for the management of ED through an overview of systematic reviews. Methods: Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases, as well as sources of grey literature until June 12, 2021 (PROSPERO: CRD42020216754). We considered systematic reviews, meta-analyses or network meta-analyses of randomized trials that provided outcomes about the efficacy and safety of any approved PDE5 inhibitor (avanafil, sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil). We constructed forest plots for meta-analytic effects regarding the change in erectile function, adverse events and dropouts after administration of PDE5 inhibitors in the general population and in specific patient groups. Results: We included 23 studies with 154,796 participants and a total of 258 meta-analytic effects. Sildenafil 25 mg [Weighted Mean Difference (WMD): 13.08, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 10.1-16.06] seemed to be statistically superior to all interventions in improving erectile function compared to placebo, but studies with low-dose sildenafil are lacking. Moreover, comparing among different PDE5 inhibitors, sildenafil 50 mg or sildenafil 100 mg were considered the most effective compounds in the general population. The latter derived, however, predominantly from indirect comparisons among different PDE5 inhibitors. Still, sildenafil 100 mg was associated with more treatment-related adverse events and dropouts. Interestingly, low-dose daily tadalafil may be more effective than high-dose on-demand tadalafil (WMD: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.03-2.44). Furthermore, testosterone and PDE5 inhibitors in patients with ED and hypogonadism seem to further improve symptoms, while the addition of a-blockers in patients with urinary symptoms treated with PDE5 inhibitors does not provide additional benefits (WMD: −0.8, 95% CI: −1.65-0.06). Conclusion: Although the efficacy and safety of PDE5 inhibitors, compared to placebo, is well-documented, the existing evidence comparing different PDE5 inhibitors is low. Therefore, high-quality, head-to-head, trials comparing different PDE5 inhibitors are necessary to determine their ideal dosage and formulation based on their safety and efficacy profile. Systematic Review Registration : PROSPERO, identifier [CRD42020216754].

BackgroundAnatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (AEEP) is recommended for first line surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) caused by moderate and large prostatic adenoma. However, its role in the retreatment setting after failed previous surgical treatment for BPO remains uncaptured. In this scope, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to assess the safety and efficacy of AEEP in the retreatment setting.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase databases from inception to March 2022 for prospective or retrospective studies involving patients undergoing prostatic enucleation for recurrent or residual BPO after previous standard or minimally invasive surgical treatments for BPO. Based on data availability, we performed a meta-analysis comparing AEEP in patients with recurrent or residual BPO versus AEEP for primary BPO. PROSPERO: CRD42022308941).ResultsWe included 15 studies in the systematic review and 10 in the meta-analysis (6553 patients, 841 with recurrent or residual BPO and 5712 with primary BPO). All included studies involved patients undergoing HoLEP or ThuLEP. In terms of Qmax, post-void residual, International Prostate Symptom Score, removed adenoma, operative time, duration of catheterization and hospital stay, as well as complications, HoLEP for recurrent or residual BPO was equally effective compared to HoLEP for primary BPO up to 1 year postoperatively. Importantly, the beneficial effect of HoLEP on the retreatment setting was observed after previous standard or minimally invasive surgical treatments for BPO. The overall strength of evidence for all outcomes was deemed very low.ConclusionsHoLEP may be safely and effectively used in experienced hands for the surgical treatment of recurrent or residual BPO in patients with large or moderate prostates following previous open, endoscopic or minimally invasive surgical treatment for BPO.

Aim of this review is to summarize and evaluate the current literature on the pathophysiology, prevalence, sociosexual impact, and potential treatment options of climacturia. Climacturia, defined as orgasm-associated urinary incontinence and characterized by great prevalence variability, ranging between 15.7 and 93% was, so far, a relatively neglected post-radical prostatectomy functional side-effect. Recent studies have shown that it can significantly impact the quality of life of couples after prostate cancer treatment. A knowledge gap characterizes the pathophysiologic pathways while treatment is based on empirically chosen treatment options (condom use, presexual intercourse urination) or on therapeutic modalities proposed by low-quality studies (pelvic floor muscle training, penile applied devices). Evidence regarding efficacy of surgical techniques (artificial urinary sphincter, male sling, or dual implantation of penile prosthesis with a sling) for climacturia treatment are limited but with an increasing trend of relevant published data in the last 5 years. The mini-jupette sling plus inflatable penile prosthesis placement is a promising surgical technique that has been studied in a multi-institutional cohort with encouraging results regarding climacturia, erectile dysfunction, and mild-incontinence control. However, future studies with longer follow-up and larger sample sizes are certainly needed to confirm the long-term safety and benefits of this intervention.

Aim of this review is to summarize and evaluate the current literature addressing the synchronous combined surgical treatment approach for co-existent post-radical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence. Severity of stress urinary incontinence is the basic element that defines which option of combined surgery will be offered to a patient. So, for cases of severe erectile dysfunction and severe stress urinary incontinence (>4 pads/day) the only available option is synchronous inflatable penile prosthesis plus artificial urinary sphincter dual implantation. When severe erectile dysfunction coexist with mild to moderate stress urinary incontinence synchronous inflatable penile prosthesis plus male sling or ProAct (Uromedica, Plymouth, MN, USA) device are the current available treatment options. Finally, when severe erectile dysfunction along with mild stress urinary incontinence and with or without climacturia are present, a new surgical technique of simultaneous inflatable penile prosthesis plus urethral mini-sling, named “Andrianne mini-jupette”, implantation has been recently proposed. Synchronous combined surgery for post-radical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence seems to offer similar efficacy and safety results compared with two-stage implantation but in a more cost- and time effective approach. Thus, synchronous surgery, in the hands of experienced prosthetic surgeons, could be potentially a valuable alternative for the management of co-existent post-radical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence. Nevertheless, in order to acquire robust scientific data further prospective comparative studies on larger numbers of patients are surely needed.

BackgroundCurrently, there is no efficacious treatment method for chronic prostatitis type IIIb/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). Aim of the study was to investigate and compare the efficacy and safety of low-intensity shockwave therapy (LiST) vs. sham treatment in CP/CPPS patients.MethodsPatients with CP/CPPS diagnosis were randomized in this prospective, sham-controlled, double-blind study either to the active groups (Group B, C) who received 5000 shockwaves per session with energy flux density 0.1 mJ/mm2 or to the sham group (Group A) who received 5000 shockwaves from a visually identical sham probe. All groups underwent six sessions (once/week). LiST effects on pain, micturition, quality of life (QoL), and erectile function were evaluated at 4, 12, and 24 weeks after treatment. The parameters were investigated using validated questionnaires. Uroflowmetry and post void residual calculation were performed at baseline and at 4- and 12-week FU visit. Prostate mpMRI and PSA measurement were performed at baseline and 12-week FU visit.ResultsOverall, 45 men were randomized to the active (n = 30) and sham groups (n = 15). Regarding impact of LiST in National Institutes of Health-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) total, pain, and QoL subdomains scores a clear and persistent in all FU timepoints improvement was found compared to sham treatment. NIH-CPSI urinary subdomain, International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS], PSA, and mpMRI-PIRADS scores did not differ between the two groups. The mean difference between the LiST and sham group in the change of the NIH-CPSI pain-domain score (Q1–4) from baseline to 12 weeks after final treatment which was 3.3 (95% CI, 1.8, 4.7). Perineal LiST was easy and safe to perform without anesthesia or any side-effects.ConclusionsLiST seems to be a safe and effective treatment option for CP/CPPS, considerably improving pain and quality of life. Lack of any side-effects, and the potential for repetition make LiST a promising treatment choice for CP/CPPS patients.

The impact of energy flux density (EFD) used on low-intensity shockwave therapy (LiST) for erectile dysfunction (ED) has not been explored. Our aim was to compare EFD 0.05 versus 0.10 mJ/mm2 regarding efficacy and safety of 12-treatment sessions when applied two or three times per week. Ninety-seven patients with vasculogenic ED, PDE5 inhibitors users were randomized into four groups, to receive 12 LiST sessions. Group A (n = 24) : two sessions per week, EFD 0.05 mJ/mm2; Group B (n = 24): three sessions per week, EFD 0.05 mJ/mm2; Group C (n = 24): two sessions per week, EFD 0.10 mJ/mm2; Group D (n = 25): three sessions per week, EFD 0.10 mJ/mm2. International Index for Erectile Function—Erectile Function domain (IIEF-EF), Minimally clinical important differences (MCID), sexual encounter profile, and triplex ultrasonography parameters were used to asses erectile function. Eighty-nine patients completed the 6-month follow-up (FU). All four groups improved in mean IIEF-EF score, average SEP3 “Yes” response rates at 6-month FU visit compared with baseline (p < 0.001). MCID at 6-month FU visit was achieved in 82.6%, 77.3%, 87%, and 81% in Groups A, B, C, and D, respectively. Mean PSV (cm/s) at baseline versus 3-month FU visit were 30.32 versus 34.67 for Group A, 30.02 versus 35.02 for Group B, 30.2 versus 36.02, for Group C, 29.43 versus 34.3 for Group D (p < 0.01). There were no statistical significant differences in the change of all outcome measures assessing erectile function between different sessions frequency. A tendency for better efficacy using EFD 0.10 mJ/mm2 was noticed, although it did not reach statistical significance. No treatment-related side‐effects were reported. This study lacks a sham-controlled arm. However, all patients were randomized to the four groups, and baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Moreover, arterial insufficiency was confirmed among all patients by penile triplex ultrasonography. Conclusively, patients may benefit equally when sessions are applied either two or three per week. An EFD of 0.10 mJ/mm2 could result in better outcomes, but further studies are needed to validate this observation.

Male infertility, a relatively common and multifactorial medical condition, affects approximately 15% of couples globally. Based on WHO estimates, a staggering 190 million people struggle with this health condition, and male factor is the sole or contributing factor in roughly 20–50% of these cases. Nowadays, urologists are confronted with a wide spectrum of conditions ranging from the typical infertile male to more complex cases of either unexplained or idiopathic male infertility, requiring a specific patient-tailored diagnostic approach and management. Strikingly enough, no identifiable cause in routine workup can be found in 30% to 50% of infertile males. The medical term male oxidative stress infertility (MOSI) was recently coined to describe infertile men with abnormal sperm parameters and oxidative stress (OS), including those previously classified as having idiopathic infertility. OS is a critical component of male infertility, entailing an imbalance between reactive oxygen species (ROS) and antioxidants. ROS abundance has been implicated in sperm abnormalities, while the exact impact on fertilization and pregnancy has long been a subject of considerable debate. In an attempt to counteract the deleterious effects of OS, urologists resorted to antioxidant supplementation. Mounting evidence indicates that indiscriminate consumption of antioxidants has led in some cases to sperm cell damage through a reductive-stress-induced state. The “antioxidant paradox”, one of the biggest andrological challenges, remains a lurking danger that needs to be carefully avoided and thoroughly investigated. For that reason, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) emerged as a viable ancillary tool to basic semen analysis, measuring the overall balance between oxidants and antioxidants (reductants). A novel biomarker, the Male infertility Oxidative System (MiOXSYS®), is a paradigm shift towards that goal, offering a quantification of OS via a quick, reliable, and reproducible measurement of the ORP. Moderation or “Μέτρον” according to the ancient Greeks is the key to successfully safeguarding redox balance, with MiOXSYS® earnestly claiming its position as a guarantor of homeostasis in the intracellular redox milieu. In the present paper, we aim to offer a narrative summary of evidence relevant to redox regulation in male reproduction, analyze the impact of OS and reductive stress on sperm function, and shed light on the “antioxidant paradox” phenomenon. Finally, we examine the most up-to-date scientific literature regarding ORP and its measurement by the recently developed MiOXSYS® assay.

IntroductionPhosphodiesterase-type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) are the recommended first-line treatment for erectile dysfunction. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that they are a safe and effective option in many patient groups. Similarly, PDE5i may be effective as part of combination therapy in non-responders to PDE5i. We will generate an overview of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and network meta-analyses aiming to summarise the available knowledge regarding the efficacy and safety of PDE5i in the general population and in multiple subgroups of patients.Methods and analysisThis overview was designed in accordance with the PRIO-harms and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines and its protocol was registered at PROSPERO. We will systematically search PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases from inception to November 2020 without any language restrictions. We will include systematic reviews or meta-analyses: (1) comparing the efficacy and safety of any dose of PDE5i with each other, with placebo or with other effective treatments for the management of erectile function; (2) exploring the use of any PDE5i alone or in combination with other treatment modalities in the general male population or in specific subgroups and (3) conducted with systematic procedures. Our overview will employ the AMSTAR 2 tool to evaluate the quality of the included studies and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the strength of evidence for all outcomes. We will construct forest plots of risk estimates with the corresponding CI for all outcomes.Ethics and disseminationIn this overview, we will undertake an extensive literature search in an attempt to evaluate the potential benefits and risks of treatment with one PDE5i versus another or versus placebo and provide recommendations for clinicians and policy-makers. No ethical approval is required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020216754.