[Modern tomography imaging techniques in urological diseases]. / Moderne Schnittbildgebung für urologische Erkrankungen.

BACKGROUND: Radiologic imaging is important for the detection, staging and follow-up of urological tumors. Basic therapy decisions for both oncological (surgical vs. systemic therapy, e.g. in testicular cancer) and non-oncological pathologies (interventional vs. conservative therapy, e.g. for ureteral stones) depend largely on the tomographic imaging performed. Due to its almost ubiquitous availability, speed and cost-effectiveness, computed tomography (CT) plays an important role not only in the clarification of abdominal trauma and non-traumatic emergencies, but also in staging and follow-up of oncological patients. However, the level of radiation exposure, impaired renal function and allergies to iodinated contrast media limit the use of CT. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be a good alternative for many areas of application in oncological and non-oncological imaging due to its high soft tissue differentiation and functional-specific protocols but without the use of ionizing radiation. AIM: In the following, the main indications of abdominal and pelvic CT and MRI in urology and their limitations are summarized. RESULTS: The areas of application between CT and MRI are increasingly overlapping, since the latest developments in CT continue to further reduce radiation exposure and increase contrast information, while the speed and robustness of MRI are significantly improving at the same time.

Evolution of Salvage Radical Prostatectomy from Open to Robotic and Further to Retzius Sparing Surgery.

Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) has evolved from open to minimally invasive approaches. sRP can be offered to patients with local recurrence to improve biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free and overall survival. We evaluate oncological outcome and continence after retropubic (RRP), conventional (cRARP), and Retzius-sparing robotic (rsRARP) surgery. MATERIALS/METHODS: A total of 53 patients undergoing sRP between 2010 and 2020 were included. Follow-up included oncological outcome and continence. RESULTS: sRP was done as RRP (n = 25), cRARP (n = 7), or rsRARP (n = 21). Median blood loss was 900 mL, 500 mL, and 300 mL for RRP, cRARP, and rsRARP, respectively. At 12 months, 5 (20%), 0, and 4 (19%) patients were continent, 9 (36%), 3 (43%), and 7 (33%) had grade 1 incontinence, 5 (20%), 2 (29%), and 3 (14%) had grade 2 incontinence, and 3 (12%), 2 (29%), and 4 (19%) had grade 3 incontinence for RRP, cRARP, or rsRARP, respectively. During a mean follow-up of 52.6 months, 16 (64%), 4 (57%), and 3 (14%) developed BCR in the RRP-, cRARP-, and rsRARP-group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Over the years, sRP has shifted from open to laparoscopic/robotic surgery. RARP shows good oncological and functional outcome. rsRARP ensures direct vision on the rectum during preparation and can therefore increase safety and surgeon's confidence, especially in the salvage setting.