Purpose: Micro-ultrasound is a novel high resolution ultrasound technology aiming to improve prostate imaging and, consequently, the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Micro-ultrasoundeguided prostate biopsy may present comparable detection rates to the standard of care multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. We aimed to compare the detection rate of micro-ultrasound vs multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies comparing micro-ultrasoundeguided prostate biopsy to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy as a reference standard test (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020198326). Records were identified by searching in PubMedÒ, ScopusÒ and Cochrane Library databases, as well as in potential sources of gray literature until November 30th, 2020. Results: We included 18 studies in the qualitative and 13 in the quantitative synthesis. In the quantitative synthesis, 1,125 participants received micro-ultrasoundeguided followed by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic prostate biopsy. Micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies displayed similar detection rates across all prostate cancer grades. The pooled detection ratio for International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group !2 prostate cancer was 1.05 (95% CI 0.93e1.19, I 2 [0%), 1.25 (95% CI 0.95e1.64, I 2 [0%) for Grade Group !3 and 0.94 (95% CI 0.73e1.22, I 2 [0%) for clinically insignificant (Grade Group 1) prostate cancer. The overall detection ratio for prostate cancer was 0.99 (95% CI 0.89e1.11, I 2 [0%). Conclusions: Micro-ultrasoundeguided prostate biopsy provides comparable detection rates for prostate cancer diagnosis with the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy. Therefore, it could be considered as an attractive alternative to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy. Nevertheless, high quality randomized trials are warranted to corroborate our findings.

This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the outcomes of monotherapy and combination treatments according to self-reports of erectile function by men with erectile dysfunction.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

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.

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to improve the level of evidence and determine the efficacy and safety of low-intensity shockwave therapy (LiST) in patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/ CPPS). MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases from inception to November 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the role of LiST for the management of CP/CPPS. We performed a random-effects metaanalysis of RCTs comparing LiST vs sham therapy on CP/CPPS symptoms at different time-points after treatment. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) with the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Furthermore, we assessed the strength of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO]: CRD42020208813). ResultsWe included five sham RCTs and one non-sham RCT. In the meta-analysis of sham RCTs, both the National Institute of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) pain domain score and the numeric pain rating scale improved significantly after LiST vs sham therapy at the assessment directly after treatment protocol completion (WMD 3.2, 95% CI 0.88-5.52, I 2 = 90%; and WMD 1.43, 95% CI 0.85-2.01, I 2 = 32%, respectively), at 1 month (WMD 4.4, 95% CI 2.84-5.95, I 2 = 68%, and WMD 2.59, 95% CI 1.92-3.27, I 2 = 83%, respectively), and at 3 months after last treatment session (WMD 3.61, 95% CI 1.49-5.74, I 2 = 90%, and WMD 2.64, 95% CI 2.13-3.16, I 2 = 71%, respectively). Similarly, the NIH-CPSI total and quality-of-life domain scores improved significantly after LiST compared to sham therapy for the same time-points. Conversely, the long-term efficacy of LiST, as well as the effect of LiST on lower urinary tract symptoms and erectile function, was clinically insignificant. ConclusionsLiST is an effective treatment modality for the improvement of pain and quality of life in patients with CP/CPPS. Therefore, it should be recommended as a part of individualised treatment strategies in such patients.

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].