Purpose To compare reusable and disposable flexible ureteroscopes in terms of efficacy and safety for patients undergoing Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS). Patients and Methods Patients with a renal stone eligible for RIRS were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, clinical trial study. Patients were randomized into two groups: group A (90 patients) underwent RIRS with a reusable flexible ureteroscope and group B (90 patients) were treated with a disposable one. Results The patients’ demographics, stone features and pre-operative urine cultures were comparable between the groups. The Stone Free Rates (SFRs) were not significantly different (86.6% and 90.0% for group A and group B, respectively, p=0.11) and the mean cost for each procedure was comparable (2321 € in group A vs 2543 € in group B, p=0.09). However, the days of hospitalization and of antibiotic therapy were higher in group A (p ≤ 0.05). The overall complication rate in group A was 8.8% whilst in group B it was 3.3% (p ≤ 0.05); in particular, group A exhibited a greater number of major complications (Clavien score IIIa-V). The overall postoperative infection rate was 16.6% in group A and 3.3% in group B (p ≤ 0.05). Furthermore, none of the patients in group B developed urosepsis or had a positive blood culture, while 3 patients in group A did (p<0.05). Conclusion The use of disposable ureteroscopes is characterized by significantly lower post-operative complications and infection rates, while having comparable costs and SFRs vis à vis reusable ureteroscopes. Clinical Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN92289221.

Background and Purpose: Sexual dysfunction (SD) is a frequent side effect associated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). Some studies have showed the benefit associated with preoperative sexual rehabilitation (prehabilitation) and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for RP, but no clear clinical recommendations are available yet. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review on sexual prehabilitation prior to RP for patients with a localized PCa and analyze the impact on postoperative sexual health compared with the standard post-operative care.Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations.Results: Four randomized control trials and one retrospective comparative study were included in the analyses. Three of the five studies showed an improved EF recovery post-RP in the prehabilitation group compared to the standard of care represented by: higher International Index of Erectile Function 5 score (IIEF5) or IIEF score (p &lt; 0.0001) and a higher percentage of patients reporting return of EF based on the Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) (56 vs. 24%, p = 0.007). Self-confidence, therapeutic alliance, and adherence to treatment were stronger for patients with preoperative consultations (p &lt; 0.05) and EF recovery was better in cases of a higher number of follow-up visits (OR 4–5 visits vs. 1:12.19, p = 0.002).Discussion: Despite heterogenous methods and high risks of bias in this systematic review, starting sexual rehabilitation prior to surgery seems to ensure better EF recovery. This prehabilitation should include information of both the patient and his or her partner, with a closer follow up and the use of a multimodal treatment approach that still remains to be defined and validated (oral medication, vacuum devices, pelvic floor muscle training, etc.).

Introduction The suspension of most elective surgeries during COVID-19 pandemic caused the lengthening of urology surgical waiting lists. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on urology surgical waiting list in a high-volume hospital. Methods An observational descriptive study was designed. All patients included in the urology surgical waiting list of our high-volume center on May 1 st 2020 (46 days after the suspension of elective surgery) were analyzed. Baseline variables, priority on the waiting list, main urological disease, type of scheduled surgery, and waiting time were recorded. Other variables recorded were the presence of a urinary catheter, number of accesses to the emergency department, evidence of COVID-19 infection, number of deaths and their cause. The waiting time for each disease was compared with the time to surgery in 2019. Results A total of 350 patients were included. The mean (SD) time on the waiting list was 97.33 (55.47) days. Priority 1 patients, who normally should undergo surgery within 30 days, were on the waiting list for a mean (SD) time of 60.51 (20.14) days. They were mainly patients with ureteral lithiasis (25.6%), high-risk or muscle-invasive bladder cancer (20.9%) and high-risk prostate cancer (13.9%). The mean waiting time had already significantly exceeded the mean time to surgery in 2019 for radical cystectomy (p = 0.04) and URS (p = 0.003). Conclusions The suspension of most elective surgeries due to COVID-19 had a significant impact on urology surgical waiting list of our high-volume center, especially in priority 1 group.

Objective To systematically review the literature in order to investigate the efficacy and safety of surgical and non‐invasive penile enhancement procedures for aesthetic and therapeutic purposes. Methods A systematic search for papers investigating penile enhancement procedures was performed using the MEDLINE database. Articles published from January 2010 to December 2019, written in English, including >10 cases, and reporting objective length and/or girth outcomes, were included. Studies without primary data and conference abstracts were excluded. The main outcome measure was objective length and/or girth improvement. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Results Out of 220 unique records, a total of 57 were reviewed. Eighteen studies assessed interventions for penile enhancement in 1764 healthy men complaining of small penis. Thirty‐nine studies investigated 2587 men with concomitant pathologies consisting mostly of Peyronie's disease and erectile dysfunction. Twenty‐five studies evaluated non‐invasive interventions and 32 studies assessed surgical interventions, for a total of 2192 and 2159 men, respectively. Non‐invasive interventions, including traction therapies and injection of fillers, were safe and mostly efficacious, whereas surgical interventions were associated with minor complications and mostly increased penile dimensions and/or corrected penile curvature. Overall, the quality of studies was low, and standardized criteria to evaluate and report efficacy and safety of procedures, as well as patient satisfaction, were missing. Conclusion The quality of the studies on penile enhancement procedures published in the last decade is still low. This prevents us from establishing recommendations based on scientific evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions that are performed to increase the penis size for aesthetic or therapeutic indications.