Explore the vast range of titles available.

Injection of exogenous material into the penis and scrotum has been performed for augmentation purposes. Complications include cosmetic dissatisfaction, penile necrosis and lymphoedema. We report the complications and outcomes from a single centre with an updated systematic review of the literature. A retrospective review of all cases presenting with foreign substance injection into the genitalia, over a 10-year period was performed. Thirty-five patients with a mean (standard deviation (SD); range) age of 36.9 (±9.1; 22–61) years at presentation were included. The mean (SD; range) time between injection and presentation was 7.8 (±5.8; 1 day–20 years) years. The most common injected substance was silicone ( n  = 16, 45.7%) and liquid paraffin ( n  = 8, 22.9%). The penile shaft (94.3%) was the most injected site. The most common presentations were cosmetic dissatisfaction (57.1%) and pain and/or swelling (45.7%). Surgery was required in 32 (91.4%) cases. Primary procedures included local excision and primary closure ( n  = 19, 59.4%), circumcision ( n  = 5, 15.6%), excision with a split skin graft or a scrotal flap reconstruction ( n  = 5, 15.6%). Three (8.6%) patients presented with necrosis and required acute debridement. Overall, 18 patients had more than 1 procedure, and 8 patients required 3 or more procedures. A systematic search of the literature identified 887 articles of which 68 studies were included for analysis. The most common substance injected was paraffin (47.7%), followed by silicone (15.8%). The majority of patients (77.9%) presented with pain, swelling or penile deformity. 78.8% of the patients underwent surgical treatment, which included excision and primary closure with or without the use of skin grafts (85.1% of all procedures), the use of flaps (12.3%) and penile amputation ( n  = 2). Complications of foreign body injection into the male genitalia can be serious resulting in necrosis and autoamputation. Surgical intervention is often required to excise abnormal tissue to manage pain and improve cosmesis.

There are several endoscopic enucleation procedures (EEP) using different energy sources: holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP), Greenlight (GreenVEP) and diode (DiLEP) lasers, and plasma kinetic enucleation of the prostate (PKEP). The comparative outcomes among these EEPs are unclear. We aimed to compare the peri-operative and post-operative outcomes, complications and functional outcomes among different EEPs. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Only randomised-controlled trials (RCT) comparing EEPs were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for RCTs. The search identified 1153 articles and 12 RCTs were included. The number of RCTs for each comparison was, HoLEP vs ThuLEP; n = 3, HoLEP vs PKEP; n = 3, PKEP vs DiLEP; n = 3, HoLEP vs GreenVEP; n = 1, HoLEP vs DiLEP; n = 1, ThuLEP vs PKEP; n = 1. Operative time was shorter and blood loss was lower with ThuLEP compared with HoLEP, whereas operative time was shorter for HoLEP compared with PKEP. Blood loss was lower with HoLEP and DiLEP compared with PKEP. There were no Clavien-Dindo IV-V complications, and the incidence of Clavien-Dindo I complications was lower with ThuLEP compared with HoLEP. No significant differences were detected among EEPs regarding urinary retention, stress urinary incontinence, bladder neck contracture or urethral stricture. Lower International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and higher quality of life (QoL) scores were in favour of ThuLEP compared with HoLEP at 1 month. EEP improves symptoms and uroflowmetry parameters with a low incidence of high-grade complications. ThuLEP was associated with shorter operative time, lower blood loss, and lower incidence of low-grade complications compared with HoLEP.

Subfertility is a risk factor for testicular cancers (TT), and conversely, TT may induce subfertility due to local and regional toxic effects. We aimed to identify the association between TT characteristics and pre-orchidectomy azoospermia. A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the PRISMA checklist. Overall, eight non-randomised studies involving 469 men with TT (azoospermia, n  = 57; no azoospermia n  = 412) were included in the qualitative analysis. Bilateral TT (12.3% vs 2.9% in non-azoospermia), non-seminoma germ cell tumours (6.4% vs 1.9%), germ cell neoplasia in-situ (GCNIS) (11.1% vs 1.2%), stage 2–3 disease (22.2% vs 0%), Sertoli Cell only (SCO) on biopsy (60% vs 37.5%) and a history of undescended testis (UDT) (66.7% vs 50%) were more common in azoospermic men. FSH levels are higher (18.7–23.2 mIU/L vs <0.1–8 mIU/L in non-azoospermia), testosterone is lower, and testis size are smaller (lower range 1 mL vs 10 mL) in men with azoospermia. Leydig cell tumours and hyperplasia were only detected in men with azoospermia. In summary, bilateral TT, GCNIS, higher tumour stage, smaller testes, SCO and history of UDT may have direct effects on spermatogenesis. Small testis, raised FSH and low testosterone may reflect reduced testicular function in azoospermic men. Performing a pre-orchidectomy semen analysis is important to identify those with azoospermia or severe oligospermia in order to plan for cryopreservation or onco-TESE in young men who wish to conceive.

PurposeTo investigate and assess outcomes, complications, and functional results amongst different modifications of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP).MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA checklist. We searched the Medline, Cochrane, and Embase databases. We included only randomised-controlled trials (RCT) comparing modifications of EEPs and assessed the risk of bias (RoB).ResultsSeven RCTs were included in the study. Overall, 1266 patients were treated with Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and 80 patients with thulium laser vapo-enucleation of the prostate (ThuVEP). The operative time during pulse shape-modified HoLEP was shorter when compared to standard pulse HoLEP (MD 18.08 min, 95% CI 8.11–28.05 min, p = 0.0004). The decrease in haemoglobin was significantly lower for two-lobe HoLEP when compared to three-lobe HoLEP (MD 0.16 g/dl, 95% CI 0.22–0.1 g/dl, p < 0.00001). Virtual Basket (VB) HoLEP showed a smaller haemoglobin decrease when compared to standard pulse HoLEP (1.12 ± 1.78 vs. 2.54 ± 1.23 g/dl, p = 0.03). When directly comparing one- vs. two- vs. three-lobe HoLEP, surgical time (p < 0.001) and enucleation efficiency (p = 0.006) were significantly different and favouring one- and two-lobe HoLEP in the study with the largest patient population included. No significant differences for complications were observed; however, Clavien–Dindo IVa events were reported for two patients.ConclusionAll variations of EEP improve symptoms and functional parameters with a low incidence of high-grade complications. One- and two-lobe approaches and pulse shape-modified HoLEP seem to be beneficial in terms of operative time and blood loss.

Robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) has been widely used to treat ureteral diseases. To summarize the surgical techniques, complications, and outcomes following RUR, as well as to compare data on RUR with open and laparoscopic ureteral reconstruction. Our systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42022309364) database. The PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for publications in English on 06-Feb-2022. Randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised cohort studies with sample size [greater than or equal to] 10 cases were included. A total of 23 studies were included involving 996 patients and 1004 ureters from 13 non-comparative, and 10 retrospective comparative studies. No RCT study of RUR was reported. The success rate was reported [greater than or equal to] 90% in 15 studies. Four studies reported 85-90% success rate. Meta-analyses for comparative studies showed that RUR had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (P = 0.006) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (P < 0.001) than the open approach. RUR had shorter operative time than laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.001). RUR is associated with lower EBL and shorter LOS than the open approach, and shorter operative time than the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of benign ureteral strictures. However, further studies and more evidence are needed to determine whether RUR is more superior.

Introduction Robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) has been widely used to treat ureteral diseases. To summarize the surgical techniques, complications, and outcomes following RUR, as well as to compare data on RUR with open and laparoscopic ureteral reconstruction. Methods Our systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42022309364) database. The PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for publications in English on 06-Feb-2022. Randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised cohort studies with sample size ≥ 10 cases were included. Results A total of 23 studies were included involving 996 patients and 1004 ureters from 13 non-comparative, and 10 retrospective comparative studies. No RCT study of RUR was reported. The success rate was reported ≥ 90% in 15 studies. Four studies reported 85–90% success rate. Meta-analyses for comparative studies showed that RUR had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (P = 0.006) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (P < 0.001) than the open approach. RUR had shorter operative time than laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.001). Conclusions RUR is associated with lower EBL and shorter LOS than the open approach, and shorter operative time than the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of benign ureteral strictures. However, further studies and more evidence are needed to determine whether RUR is more superior.

Devices such as inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) can be used to achieve erectile rigidity after phalloplasty in assigned female at birth (AFAB) individuals. The approach to inserting an IPP in a neophallus is different and more challenging compared to that of an anatomical penis due to the absence of anatomical structures such as the corpora cavernosa, and the more tenuous blood supply of the neophallus and reconstructed urethra. In addition, the ideal surgical techniques and devices for use in the neophallus have not been defined. This review systematically summarises the literature on the insertion of IPP in the neophallus of individuals AFAB. In particular, the described techniques, types of devices used and peri-operative and patient-reported outcomes are emphasised. An initial search of the PubMed database was performed on 16 September 2022 and an updated search was performed on 26 May 2023. Overall, 185 articles were screened for eligibility and 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Two studies reported outcomes on the zephyr surgical implant 475 FTM device and the others reported outcomes on the Boston Scientific AMS 600/700TM CX 3-piece inflatable, AMS AmbicorTM 2-piece inflatable, Coloplast Titan® or Dynaflex devices. Overall, 1106 IPPs were analysed. The infection rate was 4.2%–50%, with most studies reporting an infection rate of <30%. Mechanical failure or dysfunction occurred in 1.4%–36.4%, explantation was required in 3.3%–41.6%, and implant revision or replacement was performed in 6%–70%. Overall, 51.4%–90.6% of patients were satisfied and 77%–100% were engaging in sexual intercourse. An IPP in a neophallus is an acceptable option to achieve rigidity for sexual intercourse. However, this challenging procedure has good reports of patient and partner satisfaction despite significant risks of complications.

The increase in practices related to enhancing penile size can be attributed to the belief that an improved genital appearance contributes to a man’s virility, coupled with an altered self-perception of his body. It is crucial to tailor interventions to meet the genuine needs of patients by thoroughly assessing their history, psychological state, and potential surgical benefits, all while considering the associated risks of complications. This systematic review aims to summarize the available evidence on outcomes, complications, and quality of life after penile augmentation surgery, examining both minimally invasive and more radical techniques. A search of the PubMed and Scopus databases, focusing on English-language papers published in the last 15 years, was performed in December 2023. Papers discussing surgery in animal models and case reports were excluded from the present study unless further evaluated in a follow-up case series. The primary outcomes were changes in penile dimensions, specifically in terms of length and girth, as well as the incidence of surgical complications and the impact on quality of life. A total of 1670 articles were retrieved from the search and 46 were included for analysis. Procedures for penile length perceived enhancements include lipoplasty, skin reconstruction plasty, V-Y and Z plasty, flap reconstruction, scrotoplasty, ventral phalloplasty, and suspensory ligament release; techniques for increasing corporal penile length include penile disassembly, total phalloplasty, and sliding elongation. Finally, penile girth enhancement may be performed using soft tissue fillers, grafting procedures, biodegradable scaffolds, and Penuma®. In conclusion, while penile augmentation surgeries offer potential solutions for individuals concerned about genital size, the risks and complexities need to be accounted for.

Prostate Cancer 3 (PCA3) is a long non-coding RNA (ncRNA) upregulated in prostate cancer (PCa). We recently identified a short ncRNA expressed from intron 1 of PCA3. Here we test the ability of this ncRNA to predict the presence of cancer in men with a biopsy without PCa. We selected men whose initial biopsy did not identify PCa and selected matched cohorts whose subsequent biopsies revealed PCa or benign tissue. We extracted RNA from the initial biopsy and measured PCA3-shRNA2, PCA3 and PSA (qRT-PCR). We identified 116 men with and 94 men without an eventual diagnosis of PCa in 2-5 biopsies (mean 26 months), collected from 2002-2008. The cohorts were similar for age, PSA and surveillance period. We detected PSA and PCA3-shRNA2 RNA in all samples, and PCA3 RNA in 90% of biopsies. The expression of PCA3 and PCA3-shRNA2 were correlated (Pearson's r = 0.37, p<0.01). There was upregulation of PCA3 (2.1-fold, t-test p = 0.02) and PCA3-shRNA2 (1.5-fold) in men with PCa on subsequent biopsy, although this was not significant for the latter RNA (p = 0.2). PCA3 was associated with the future detection of PCa (C-index 0.61, p = 0.01). This was not the case for PCA3-shRNA2 (C-index 0.55, p = 0.2). PCA3 and PCA3-shRNA2 expression are detectable in historic biopsies and their expression is correlated suggesting co-expression. PCA3 expression was upregulated in men with PCa diagnosed at a future date, the same did not hold for PCA3-shRNA2. Futures studies should explore expression in urine and look at a time course between biopsy and PCa detection.