Ali Serdar Gözen, et al.; Robot-assisted vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: Current status and review of the literature.

No abstract

Introduction 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. Material and methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.

No abstract

Background Although multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is recommended for primary risk stratification and follow-up in Active Surveillance (AS), it is not part of common AS inclusion criteria. The objective was to compare AS eligibility by systematic biopsy (SB) and combined MRI-targeted (MRI-TB) and SB within real-world data using current AS guidelines. Methods A retrospective multicenter study was conducted by a German prostate cancer (PCa) working group representing six tertiary referral centers and one outpatient practice. Men with PCa and at least one MRI-visible lesion according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 were included. Twenty different AS inclusion criteria of international guidelines were applied to calculate AS eligibility using either a SB or a combined MRI-TB and SB. Reasons for AS exclusion were assessed. Results Of 1941 patients with PCa, per guideline, 583–1112 patients with PCa in both MRI-TB and SB were available for analysis. Using SB, a median of 22.1% (range 6.4–72.4%) were eligible for AS. Using the combined approach, a median of 15% (range 1.7–68.3%) were eligible for AS. Addition of MRI-TB led to a 32.1% reduction of suitable patients. Besides Gleason Score upgrading, the maximum number of positive cores were the most frequent exclusion criterion. Variability in MRI and biopsy protocols potentially limit the results. Conclusions Only a moderate number of patients with PCa can be monitored by AS to defer active treatment using current guidelines for inclusion in a real-world setting. By an additional MRI-TB, this number is markedly reduced. These results underline the need for a contemporary adjustment of AS inclusion criteria.