Comparison and outcomes of dusting versus stone fragmentation and extraction in retrograde intrarenal surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Lithotripsy during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) can be achieved either by fragmentation and extraction or dusting with spontaneous passage. We aimed to perform a systematic review on the safety and stone-free rate after RIRS by comparing the techniques of dusting vs fragmentation/extraction. Material and methods: This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. The inverse variance of the mean difference and 95% Confidence Interval (CI), Categorical variables were assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Method with the random effect model and reported as Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% CI. Statistical significance was set at p <0.05. Results: There were 1141 patients included in 10 studies. Stone size was up to 2.5 cm All studies used holmium laser for lithotripsy. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in surgical time (MD -5.39 minutes 95% CI -13.92-2.31, p = 0.16), postoperative length of stay (MD -0.19 days 95% CI -0.60 - -0.22, p=0.36), overall complications (OR 0.98 95% CI 0.58-1.66, p = 0.95), hematuria (OR 1.01 95% CI 0.30-3.42, p = 0.99), postoperative fever (OR 0.70 95% CI 0.41-1.19, p = 0.19) and sepsis (OR 1.03 95% CI 0.10-10.35, p = 0.98), immediate (OR 0.40 95% CI 0.13-1.24, p = 0.11) and overall stone-free rate (OR 0.76 95% CI 0.43-1.32, p = 0.33), and retreatment rate (OR 1.35 95% CI 0.57-3.20, p = 0.49) between the groups. Conclusions: This systematic review infers that urologists can safely use either option of fragmentation and basket extraction or dusting without extraction to achieve similar outcomes as both techniques are similar for efficacy and safety.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on delaying surgery for urothelial carcinoma of bladder and upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Implications for the COVID19 pandemic and beyond

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has led to competing strains on hospital resources and healthcare personnel. Patients with newly diagnosed invasive urothelial carcinomas of bladder (UCB) upper tract (UTUC) may experience delays to definitive radical cystectomy (RC) or radical nephro-ureterectomy (RNU) respectively. We evaluate the impact of delaying definitive surgery on survival outcomes for invasive UCB and UTUC. Methods We searched for all studies investigating delayed urologic cancer surgery in Medline and Embase up to June 2020. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Results We identified a total of 30 studies with 32,591 patients. Across 13 studies (n = 12,201), a delay from diagnosis of bladder cancer/TURBT to RC was associated with poorer overall survival (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.09–1.45, p = 0.002). For patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before RC, across the 5 studies (n = 4,316 patients), a delay between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy was not found to be significantly associated with overall survival (pooled HR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.96–1.94, p = 0.08). For UTUC, 6 studies (n = 4,629) found that delay between diagnosis of UTUC to RNU was associated with poorer overall survival (pooled HR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.19–2.02, p = 0.001) and cancer-specific survival (pooled HR of 2.56, 95% CI: 1.50–4.37, p = 0.001). Limitations included between-study heterogeneity, particularly in the definitions of delay cut-off periods between diagnosis to surgery. Conclusions A delay from diagnosis of UCB or UTUC to definitive RC or RNU was associated with poorer survival outcomes. This was not the case for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Urological Cancers During COVID-19: Analyses of Short-Term Outcomes from the COVIDSurg-Cancer Study

Aim To assess 30-day postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing urological cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method All bladder, kidney, UTUC and prostate cancer patients from the COVIDSurg-Cancer Study who underwent elective potentially curative cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic until July 2020 were included. Univariable and multivariable regression was performed to assess the association of patient factors with mortality, respiratory complications, and operative complications. Results A total of 1,902 patients from 36 countries were included. A total of 42/1902 (0.2%) patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 during their inpatient stay. 21 (0.1%) mortalities were observed;of those, 8 (38.1%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Mortalities were found to be more likely in patients with concurrent COVID-19 infection (OR 31.7, 95% CI 12.4–81.42, p<0.001), aged over 80, ASA grade 3+ and ECOG grade 1+. 40 (0.2%) respiratory complications (acute respiratory distress syndrome or pneumonia) were observed within 30 days of surgery. Respiratory complications were more likely in patients aged with concurrent COVID-19 infection (OR 40.6, 95%CI 11.41–144.45, p<0.001), over 70, from an area with high community risk or with a revised cardiac risk index of 1+. There were 84 (4.4%) major complications (Clavien-Dindo score ≥3). Patients with a concurrent COVID-19 infection (OR 7.45, 95% CI 2.73–20.3, p<0.001) or aged 80 or above were more likely to experience major complications. Conclusions Our data can inform health services to safely select patients for surgery during the pandemic. Patients with concurrent COVID-19 infection have a higher risk of mortality and respiratory complications and should not undergo surgery if possible.

Implications and effects of COVID-19 on diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to uncertainty on the optimal management for prostate cancer (PCa). This narrative review aims to shed light on the optimal diagnosis and management of patients with or suspected to have PCa. RECENT FINDINGS: Faecal-oral or aerosol transmission is possible during prostate procedures; caution must be in place when performing digital rectal examinations, transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies and prostate surgeries requiring general anaesthesia. Patients must also be triaged using preoperative polymerase chain reaction tests for COVID-19. COVID-19 has accelerated the adoption of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), reducing the need for prostate biopsy unless when absolutely indicated, and the risk of COVID-19 spread can be reduced. Combined with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density, amongst other factors, multiparametric MRI could reduce unnecessary biopsies in patients with little chance of clinically significant PCa. Treatment of PCa should be stratified by the risk level and preferences of the patient. COVID-19 has accelerated the development of telemedicine and clinicians should utilise safe and effective teleconsultations to protect themselves and their patients. SUMMARY: COVID-19 transmission during prostate procedures is possible. Patients with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) of <3 and PSA density <0.15 ng/ml/ml are deemed low-risk and are safe to undergo surveillance without MRI-targeted biopsy. Intermediate- or high-risk patients should be offered definitive treatment within four months or 30days of diagnosis to avoid compromising treatment outcomes; three-month courses of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy can be considered when a delay of surgery is anticipated.

Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limited.

Delayed surgery for localised and metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the cancellation or deferment of many elective cancer surgeries. We performed a systematic review on the oncological effects of delayed surgery for patients with localised or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the targeted therapy (TT) era. METHOD: The protocol of this review is registered on PROSPERO(CRD42020190882). A comprehensive literature search was performed on Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL using MeSH terms and keywords for randomised controlled trials and observational studies on the topic. Risks of biases were assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For localised RCC, immediate surgery [including partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN)] and delayed surgery [including active surveillance (AS) and delayed intervention (DI)] were compared. For metastatic RCC, upfront versus deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) were compared. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included for quantitative analysis. Delayed surgery was significantly associated with worse cancer-specific survival (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.23-2.27, p < 0.01) in T1a RCC, but no significant difference was noted for overall survival. For localised ≥ T1b RCC, there were insufficient data for meta-analysis and the results from the individual reports were contradictory. For metastatic RCC, upfront TT followed by deferred CN was associated with better overall survival when compared to upfront CN followed by deferred TT (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.86, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Noting potential selection bias, there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that delayed surgery is safe in localised RCC. For metastatic RCC, upfront TT followed by deferred CN should be considered.

Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 1 and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 During Aerosol-Generating Procedures in Critical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of coronavirus transmission to healthcare workers performing aerosol-generating procedures and the potential benefits of personal protective equipment during these procedures. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched using a combination of related MeSH terms and keywords. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies and case controls investigating common anesthetic and critical care aerosol-generating procedures and transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to healthcare workers were included for quantitative analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Qualitative and quantitative data on the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus to healthcare workers via aerosol-generating procedures in anesthesia and critical care were collected independently. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tool was used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventeen studies out of 2,676 yielded records were included for meta-analyses. Endotracheal intubation (odds ratio, 6.69, 95% CI, 3.81-11.72; p < 0.001), noninvasive ventilation (odds ratio, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.86-7.19; p < 0.001), and administration of nebulized medications (odds ratio, 10.03; 95% CI, 1.98-50.69; p = 0.005) were found to increase the odds of healthcare workers contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The use of N95 masks (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03-0.39; p < 0.001), gowns (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.73; p < 0.001), and gloves (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.53; p < 0.001) were found to be significantly protective of healthcare workers from contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. CONCLUSIONS: Specific aerosol-generating procedures are high risk for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from patients to healthcare workers. Personal protective equipment reduce the odds of contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

A systematic review on COVID-19: urological manifestations, viral RNA detection and special considerations in urological conditions.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review on COVID-19 and its potential urological manifestations. METHODS: A literature search was performed using combination of keywords (MeSH terms and free text words) relating to COVID-19, urology, faeces and stool on multiple databases. Primary outcomes were the urological manifestations of COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA detection in urine and stool samples. Meta-analyses were performed when there were two or more studies reporting on the same outcome. Special considerations in urological conditions that were relevant in the pandemic of COVID-19 were reported in a narrative manner. RESULTS: There were a total of 21 studies with 3714 COVID-19 patients, and urinary symptoms were absent in all of them. In patients with COVID-19, 7.58% (95% CI 3.30-13.54%) developed acute kidney injury with a mortality rate of 93.27% (95% CI 81.46-100%) amongst them. 5.74% (95% CI 2.88-9.44%) of COVID-19 patients had positive viral RNA in urine samples, but the duration of viral shedding in urine was unknown. 65.82% (95% CI 45.71-83.51%) of COVID-19 patients had positive viral RNA in stool samples, which were detected from 2 to 47 days from symptom onset. 31.6% of renal transplant recipients with COVID-19 required non-invasive ventilation, and the overall mortality rate was 15.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Acute kidney injury leading to mortality is common amongst COVID-19 patients, likely as a result of direct viral toxicity. Viral RNA positivity was detected in both urine and stool samples, so precautions are needed when we perform transurethral or transrectal procedures.