Ureteral stricture rate after endoscopic treatments for urolithiasis and related risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: We aimed to accurately determine ureteral stricture (US) rates following urolithiasis treatments and their related risk factors. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines using databases from inception to November 2023. Studies were deemed eligible for analysis if they included ≥ 18 years old patients with urinary lithiasis (Patients) who were subjected to endoscopic treatment (Intervention) with ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (Comparator) to assess the incidence of US (Outcome) in prospective and retrospective studies (Study design). RESULTS: A total of 43 studies were included. The pooled US rate was 1.3% post-SWL and 2.1% post-PCNL. The pooled rate of US post-URS was 1.9% but raised to 2.7% considering the last five years' studies and 4.9% if the stone was impacted. Moreover, the pooled US rate differed if follow-ups were under or over six months. Patients with proximal ureteral stone, preoperative hydronephrosis, intraoperative ureteral perforation, and impacted stones showed higher US risk post-endoscopic intervention with odds ratio of 1.6 (P = 0.05), 2.6 (P = 0.009), 7.1 (P < 0.001), and 7.47 (P = 0.003), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The overall US rate ranges from 0.3 to 4.9%, with an increasing trend in the last few years. It is influenced by type of treatment, stone location and impaction, preoperative hydronephrosis and intraoperative perforation. Future standardized reporting and prospective and more extended follow-up studies might contribute to a better understanding of US risks related to calculi treatment.

PSMA-PET and micro-ultrasound potential in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer

To compare the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET/TC with PRI-MUS (prostate risk identification using micro-ultrasound) in the primary diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Methods From September till December 2018, we prospectively enrolled 25 candidates to 68Ga-PSMA PET/TRUS (transrectal ultrasound) fusion biopsy and compared them with PRI-MUS. This included patients with persistently elevated PSA and/or PHI (prostate health index) suspicious for PCa, negative digital rectal examination, with either negative or contraindication to mpMRI, and at least one negative biopsy. The diagnostic performance of the two modalities was calculated based on pathology results. Results Overall, 20 patients were addressed to 68Ga-PSMA PET/TRUS fusion biopsy. Mean SUVmax and SUVratio for PCa lesions resulted significantly higher than in benign lesions (p = 0.041 and 0.011, respectively). Using optimal cut-off points, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT demonstrated an overall accuracy of 83% for SUVmax ≥ 5.4 and 94% for SUVratio ≥ 2.2 in the detection of clinically significant PCa (GS ≥ 7). On counterpart, PRI-MUS results were: score 3 in nine patients (45%), score 4 in ten patients (50%), and one patient with score 5. PRI-MUS score 4 and 5 demonstrated an overall accuracy of 61% in detecting clinically significant PCa. Conclusion In this highly-selected patient population, in comparison to PRI-MUS, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT shows a higher diagnostic performance (AU)

PSMA-PET and micro-ultrasound potential in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET/TC with PRI-MUS (prostate risk identification using micro-ultrasound) in the primary diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: From September till December 2018, we prospectively enrolled 25 candidates to 68Ga-PSMA PET/TRUS (transrectal ultrasound) fusion biopsy and compared them with PRI-MUS. This included patients with persistently elevated PSA and/or PHI (prostate health index) suspicious for PCa, negative digital rectal examination, with either negative or contraindication to mpMRI, and at least one negative biopsy. The diagnostic performance of the two modalities was calculated based on pathology results. RESULTS: Overall, 20 patients were addressed to 68Ga-PSMA PET/TRUS fusion biopsy. Mean SUVmax and SUVratio for PCa lesions resulted significantly higher than in benign lesions (p = 0.041 and 0.011, respectively). Using optimal cut-off points, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT demonstrated an overall accuracy of 83% for SUVmax ≥ 5.4 and 94% for SUVratio ≥ 2.2 in the detection of clinically significant PCa (GS ≥ 7). On counterpart, PRI-MUS results were: score 3 in nine patients (45%), score 4 in ten patients (50%), and one patient with score 5. PRI-MUS score 4 and 5 demonstrated an overall accuracy of 61% in detecting clinically significant PCa. CONCLUSION: In this highly-selected patient population, in comparison to PRI-MUS, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT shows a higher diagnostic performance.

A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience : A better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones.

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of RIRS, SWL and PCNL for lower calyceal stones sized 1-2 cm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a single lower calyceal stone with an evidence of a CT diameter between 1 and 2 cm were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, unblinded, clinical trial study. Patients were randomized into three groups: group A: SWL (194 pts); group B: RIRS (207 pts); group C: PCNL (181 pts). Patients were evaluated with KUB radiography (US for uric acid stones) at day 10 and a CT scan after 3 months. The CONSORT 2010 statement was adhered to where possible. The collected data were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean stone size was 13.78 mm in group A, 14.82 mm in group B and 15.23 mm in group C (p = 0.34). Group C compared to group B showed longer operative time [72.3 vs. 55.8 min (p = 0.082)], fluoroscopic time [175.6 vs. 31.8 min (p = 0.004)] and hospital stay [3.7 vs. 1.3 days (p = 0.039)]. The overall stone-free rate (SFR) was 61.8% for group A, 82.1% for group B and 87.3% for group C. The re-treatment rate was significantly higher in group A compared to the other two groups, 61.3% (p < 0.05). The auxiliary procedure rate was comparable for groups A and B and lower for group C (p < 0.05). The complication rate was 6.7, 14.5 and 19.3% for groups A, B and C, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RIRS and PCNL were more effective than SWL to obtain a better SFR and less auxiliary and re-treatment rate in single lower calyceal stone with a CT diameter between 1 and 2 cm. RIRS compared to PCNL offers the best outcome in terms of procedure length, radiation exposure and hospital stay. ISRCTN 55546280.

Thulium laser enucleation (ThuLEP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate in saline (TURis): A randomized prospective trial to compare intra and early postoperative outcomes. / Enucleación con láser de tulio (ThuLEP) frente a resección transuretral de la próstata en solución salina (TURis): un ensayo prospectivo aleatorizado para comparar resultados intra y postoperatorios tempranos.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical intra and early postoperative outcomes between thulium laser transurethral enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) and transurethral bipolar resection of the prostate (TURis) for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a prospective randomized trial. METHODS: The study randomized 208 consecutive patients with BPH to ThuLEP (n=102) or TURis (n=106). For all patients were evaluated preoperatively with regards to blood loss, catheterization time, irrigation volume, hospital stay and operative time. At 3 months after surgery they were also evaluated by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), and postvoid residual urine volume (PVR). RESULTS: The patients in each study arm each showed no significant difference in preoperative parameters. Compared with TURIS, ThuLEP had same operative time (53.69±31.44 vs 61.66±18.70minutes, P=.123) but resulted in less hemoglobin decrease (0.45 vs 2.83g/dL, P=.005). ThuLEP also needed less catheterization time (1.3 vs 4.8 days, P=.011), irrigation volume (29.4 vs 69.2 L, P=.002), and hospital stay (1.7 vs 5.2 days, P=.016). During the 3 months of follow-up, the procedures did not demonstrate a significant difference in Qmax, IPSS, PVR, and QOLS. CONCLUSION: ThuLEP and TURis both relieve lower urinary tract symptoms equally, with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP was statistically superior to TURis in blood loss, catheterization time, irrigation volume, and hospital stay. However, procedures did not differ significantly in Qmax, IPSS, PVR, and QOLS through 3 months of follow-up.