Search

Introduction: Placebo influence on such objective indicators, as sperm quality and infertility, has not been studied previously, but some studies report that placebo may distort even objective outcomes. The aim of current study is to assess the placebo effect on fertility in patients suffering from sperm abnormalities and/or infertility., Evidence Acquisition: We conducted a search of two databases (Scopus and MEDLINE) and identified placebo-controlled clinical trials which focused on sperm abnormalities and/or male infertility treatment. Primary outcomes included changes in semen parameters (volume, total count, sperm concentration in semen, progressive motility, morphology (normal cells)). Secondary outcomes included DNA fragmentation and change in pregnancy rate., Evidence Synthesis: Seventy-seven articles published from 1983 to 2022 were included. Statistically significant changes were observed for the following values: total sperm count, mean change 0.16 (95% CI 0.05, 0.26); P=0.004, I 2 =75.1%; and progressive motility, mean change 0.13 (95% CI 0.02, 0.24); P=0.026, I 2 =84.9%. In contrast, placebo did not affect sperm concentration, sperm volume, sperm morphology or DNA fragmentation index. The publication bias for all the values measured with Egger's test and funnel plots was low., Conclusions: The current meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant increase of total sperm count and progressive motility in the placebo group. In contrast, placebo did not affect sperm concentration, sperm volume, sperm morphology and DNA fragmentation index. These findings should be considered while planning or analyzing placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Introduction: Partial nephrectomy, thermal ablation and active surveillance are acceptable options for T1 stage renal tumor management. Currently, we lack sufficient information to make an accurate comparison of thermal ablation with active surveillance. The study objectives were to compare thermal ablation with active surveillance indirectly using partial nephrectomy as a reference., Evidence Acquisition: We performed a systematic literature search using two databases (Scopus and Medline). The detailed search strategy is available at Prospero, CRD42021290055. The primary outcome was cancer-specific survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and metastasis-free survival., Evidence Synthesis: The final sample comprised 33 articles. They included the ones that compare: partial nephrectomy to ablation (29 studies), partial nephrectomy to active surveillance (2 studies), and partial nephrectomy vs. active surveillance vs. ablation (2 articles). We assessed 3-year and 5-year cancer-specific survival, and 3-, 5- and 7-year overall survival. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) treatment benefit ranking was: cancer-specific survival - 48.6% for thermal ablation and 1.6% for active surveillance (5-year follow-up); overall survival - 52% for thermal ablation and 0.6% for active surveillance (7-year follow-up). The results demonstrated a significantly higher 3-year cancer-specific survival (RR 1.55, P=0.02) and 3- and 7-year follow-up overall survival (RR 1.85, P=0.03) in thermal ablation compared to active surveillance. At 5-year follow-up, cancer-specific survival and overall survival were in favor of thermal ablation while no statistically significant difference was reported., Conclusions: Thermal ablation offers a significantly higher cancer-specific survival and overall survival at mid-term follow-up in the management of T1 renal tumors compared to active surveillance. However, it is necessary to conduct further prospective randomized studies to validate the data.

Introduction: Augmented reality (AR) applied to surgical procedures refers to the superimposition of preoperative or intraoperative images into the operative field. Augmented reality has been increasingly used in myriad surgical specialties including urology. The following study reviews advance in the use of AR for improvements in urologic outcomes., Evidence Acquisition: We identified all descriptive, validity, prospective randomized/nonrandomized trials and retrospective comparative/noncomparative studies about the use of AR in urology until March 2021. The Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were used for literature search. We conducted the study selection according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Statement) Guidelines. We limited included studies to only those using AR, excluding all that used virtual reality technology., Evidence Synthesis: A total of 60 studies were identified and included in the present analysis. Overall, 19 studies were descriptive/validity/phantom studies for specific AR methodologies, 4 studies were case reports, and 37 studies included clinical prospective/retrospective comparative studies., Conclusions: Advances in AR have led to increasing registration accuracy as well as increased ability to identify anatomic landmarks and improve outcomes during urologic procedures such as RARP and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.

Introduction: Vaporization of the prostate (VP) and endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) are reliable and frequently used methods for BPO relief. Both surgeries utilize lasers and EAU recommends them in similar patient cohorts. Our objective was to compare intra- and perioperative results of patients who had undergone VP and EEP., Evidence Acquisition: A systematic literature search was performed in three databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus). The detailed search strategy is available at Prospero, CRD42020204739. Primary outcomes were functional results (IPSS, QoL, PVR, Qmax), and secondary outcomes were intraoperative results, postoperative PSA and prostate volume, complications, and recurrence rate., Evidence Synthesis: VP required less operative time compared to EEP, mean difference -5.51 (95% CI -7.52; -3.50). IPSS and Qmax for VP were worse after 12-month follow-up, mean difference 0.89 (95% CI 0.52; 1.27) and -3.7 (95% CI -4.56; -2.85), respectively, while QoL did not differ significantly. Postoperative PSA level was higher in the VP group, mean difference 2.28 (95% CI 2.00; 2.55). VP was associated with reduced Clavien-Dindo grade I (OR=4.16; 95% CI 2.96; 5.84) and grade II (OR=3.79; 95% CI 2.25; 6.39) complication rate, especially in terms of the percentage of blood transfusion and transient urinary incontinence. The rate of complications grade IIIa and higher was similar (3-6%). Reoperation rate was only estimated in one study and was significantly higher in the PVP group at 60 months of follow-up, 2.7% vs. 0%, P<0.05., Conclusions: EEP and VP share the efficacy and safety in BPH management. Our meta-analysis shows comparable complication rate in Clavien-Dindo III, VP superiority in operation time, and EEP superiority in long-term functional outcomes and PSA reduction.

Introduction: We provide a systematic analysis of nerve-sparing surgery (NSS) to assess and summarize the risks and benefits of NSS in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa)., Evidence Acquisition: We have undertaken a systematic search of original articles using 3 databases: Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Original articles in English containing outcomes of nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk PCa were included. The primary outcomes were oncological results: the rate of positive surgical margins and biochemical relapse. The secondary outcomes were functional results: erectile function (EF) and urinary continence., Evidence Synthesis: The rate of positive surgical margins differed considerably, from zero to 47%. The majority of authors found no correlation between NSS and a positive surgical margin rate. The rate of biochemical relapse ranged from 9.3% to 61%. Most of the articles lacked data on odds ratio (OR) for positive margin and biochemical relapse. The presented results showed no effect of nerve sparing (NS) on positive margin (OR=0.81, 0.6-1.09) or biochemical relapse (hazard ratio [HR]=0.93, 0.52-1.64). A strong association between NSS and potency rate was observed. Without NSS, between 0% and 42% of patients were potent, with unilateral 79-80%, with bilateral - up to 90-100%. Urinary continence was not strongly associated with NSS and was relatively good in both patients with and without NSS., Conclusions: NSS may provide benefits for patients with urinary continence and significantly improves EF in high-risk patients. Moreover, it is not associated with an increased risk of relapse in short- and middle-term follow-up. However, the advantages of using such a surgical technique are unclear.