Irrigation and instrumentation during ureterorenoscopic procedures may cause increased pressure in the renal pelvis (PP) with potential harmful adverse effects. In order to assess the pressure increases during ureterorenoscopy, we measured the intraluminal renal pelvic pressure during retrograde intrarenal stone surgery (RIRS). Twelve patients admitted for RIRS were included. Irrigation rate was standardized to 8 ml/min. A ureteral catheter was retrogradely placed in the renal pelvis for PP measurements. PP was measured one time per second during insertion of the Storz Flex-X2 ureteroscope and during stone treatment. Baseline PP was mean 10(±4.0) mmHg. During simple ureterorenoscopy, PP was mean 35(±10) mmHg. During stone management the average PP was 54(±18) mmHg and pelvic pressure peaks up to 328 mmHg occurred. In a 5-min standardized period of simple ureterorenoscopy, 83 pressure peaks >50 mmHg were measured in average per patient (range 2–238). Forced irrigation with a 20 ml syringe resulted in pressure peaks up to 288 mmHg. Very high pelvic pressures are obtained during flexible ureterorenoscopy. Taking into consideration that the threshold for pyelovenous backflow is around 30 mmHg, it is concerning that PPs >300 mmHg are not uncommon during these procedures. Methods to monitor and lower the PP during ureterorenoscopy, therefore, are considered of importance.

Objectives: To set out the second in a series of guidelines on the treatment of urolithiasis by the International Alliance of Urolithiasis that concerns retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), with the aim of providing a clinical framework for urologists performing RIRS. Materials and Methods: After a comprehensive search of RIRS‐related literature published between 1 January 1964 and 1 October 2021 from the PubMed database, systematic review and assessment were performed to inform a series of recommendations, which were graded using modified GRADE methodology. Additionally, quality of evidence was classified using a modification of the Oxford Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine Levels of Evidence system. Finally, related comments were provided. Results: A total of 36 recommendations were developed and graded that covered the following topics: indications and contraindications; preoperative imaging; preoperative ureteric stenting; preoperative medications; peri‐operative antibiotics; management of antithrombotic therapy; anaesthesia; patient positioning; equipment; lithotripsy; exit strategy; and complications. Conclusion: The series of recommendations regarding RIRS, along with the related commentary and supporting documentation, offered here should help provide safe and effective performance of RIRS.

Study Type – Diagnostic (validating cohort) Level of Evidence 1b What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? Scientists have found a number of genetic factors that increase prostate cancer risk, including heritable mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 . These mutations are not common but can have major impact, as a BRCA2 mutation increases risk by up to seven‐fold while a BRCA1 mutation is thought to double risk in men under 65. The IMPACT study aims to determine whether targeted screening in men with a known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation would lead to earlier diagnosis of prostate cancers. This data from the IMPACT study adds to the increasing evidence that BRCA mutation carriers develop more aggressive disease. Although these are early results, it appears that PSA screening is more accurate at predicting potentially aggressive prostate cancer among men at higher risk of the disease due to a genetic predisposition than general population screening. This study provides support for continued screening in men with genetic mutations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of targeted prostate cancer screening in men with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, an international study, IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls), was established. This is the first multicentre screening study targeted at men with a known genetic predisposition to prostate cancer. A preliminary analysis of the data is reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men aged 40–69 years from families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were offered annual prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, and those with PSA >3 ng/mL, were offered a prostate biopsy. Controls were men age‐matched (± 5 years) who were negative for the familial mutation. RESULTS: In total, 300 men were recruited (205 mutation carriers; 89 BRCA1, 116 BRCA2 and 95 controls) over 33 months. At the baseline screen (year 1), 7.0% (21/300) underwent a prostate biopsy. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in ten individuals, a prevalence of 3.3%. The positive predictive value of PSA screening in this cohort was 47·6% (10/21). One prostate cancer was diagnosed at year 2. Of the 11 prostate cancers diagnosed, nine were in mutation carriers, two in controls, and eight were clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that the positive predictive value of PSA screening in BRCA mutation carriers is high and that screening detects clinically significant prostate cancer. These results support the rationale for continued screening in such men.

Introduction: Previous studies have shown that focal low-energy extracorporeal shockwave therapy (Li-ESWT) can have a positive effect in men with erectile dysfunction (ED). Linear Li-ESWT (LLi-ESWT) for ED has not been previously assessed in a randomized trial. Aim: To evaluate the treatment outcome of LLi-ESWT for ED. Methods: Men with ED (n = 126) and a score lower than 25 points on the International Index of Erectile Function erectile function domain (IIEF-EF) were included. Subjects were allocated to receive LLi-ESWT once a week for 5 weeks or sham treatment once a week for 5 weeks. After a 4-week break, the two groups received active treatment once a week for 5 weeks. Subjects completed the IIEF, Erection Hardness Scale (EHS), Sexual Quality of Life–Men, and the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction at baseline, after 9 weeks, and after 18 weeks. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measurement was an increase of at least five points on the IIEF-EF score. The secondary outcome measurement was an increased EHS score to at least 3 in men with a score no higher than 2 at baseline. Data were analyzed by linear and logistic regression. Results: Mean IIEF-EF scores were 11.5 at baseline (95% CI = 9.8–13.2), 13.0 after five sessions (95% CI = 11.0–15.0), and 12.6 after 10 sessions (95% CI = 11.0–14.2) in the sham group and correspondingly 10.9 (95% CI = 9.1–12.7), 13.1 (95% CI = 9.3–13.4), and 11.8 (95% CI = 10.1–13.4) in the ESWT group. Success rates based on IIEF-EF score were 38.3% in the sham group and 37.9% in the ESWT group (odds ratio = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.45–2.02, P = .902). Success rates based on EHS score were 6.7% in the sham group and 3.5% in the ESWT group (odds ratio = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.08–2.61, P = .369). A limitation of this study is that device settings (number of shockwaves and penetration depth) were estimated based on an existing trial on focused ESWT. Conclusion: No clinically relevant effect of LLi-ESWT on ED was found.