Background: Multiple systematic reviews explore the effect of phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors on erectile dysfunction (ED), with each study addressing specific outcomes. However, physicians and policymakers require a holistic approach of this topic.Objective: To summarize the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of PDE5 inhibitors for the management of ED through an overview of systematic reviews.Methods: Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases, as well as sources of grey literature until June 12, 2021 (PROSPERO: CRD42020216754). We considered systematic reviews, meta-analyses or network meta-analyses of randomized trials that provided outcomes about the efficacy and safety of any approved PDE5 inhibitor (avanafil, sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil). We constructed forest plots for meta-analytic effects regarding the change in erectile function, adverse events and dropouts after administration of PDE5 inhibitors in the general population and in specific patient groups.Results: We included 23 studies with 154,796 participants and a total of 258 meta-analytic effects. Sildenafil 25 mg [Weighted Mean Difference (WMD): 13.08, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 10.1-16.06] seemed to be statistically superior to all interventions in improving erectile function compared to placebo, but studies with low-dose sildenafil are lacking. Moreover, comparing among different PDE5 inhibitors, sildenafil 50 mg or sildenafil 100 mg were considered the most effective compounds in the general population. The latter derived, however, predominantly from indirect comparisons among different PDE5 inhibitors. Still, sildenafil 100 mg was associated with more treatment-related adverse events and dropouts. Interestingly, low-dose daily tadalafil may be more effective than high-dose on-demand tadalafil (WMD: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.03-2.44). Furthermore, testosterone and PDE5 inhibitors in patients with ED and hypogonadism seem to further improve symptoms, while the addition of a-blockers in patients with urinary symptoms treated with PDE5 inhibitors does not provide additional benefits (WMD: −0.8, 95% CI: −1.65-0.06).Conclusion: Although the efficacy and safety of PDE5 inhibitors, compared to placebo, is well-documented, the existing evidence comparing different PDE5 inhibitors is low. Therefore, high-quality, head-to-head, trials comparing different PDE5 inhibitors are necessary to determine their ideal dosage and formulation based on their safety and efficacy profile.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier [CRD42020216754].

Purpose:We conducted the first double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of low-intensity shock wave therapy (LiST) exclusively in patients with moderate er...

Major urological guidelines do not currently recommend robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopic or open surgery due to the lack of high-quality evidence. We aimed to provide real-world data on the evolution of robotic urology and to compare its perioperative outcomes with those of laparoscopic and open surgeries. We used the GeRmAn Nationwide inpatient Data (GRAND), provided by the Research Data Center of the Federal Bureau of Statistics (2005-2021), and performed multiple patient-level analyses. We included patients undergoing major urological surgeries and report the largest study in the field with 993 276 patients. An open approach was performed in 733 416 cases, a laparoscopic approach in 109 428, and a robot-assisted approach in 150 432. Overall, 442 811 (45%) patients underwent radical prostatectomy, 129 943 (13%) radical cystectomy, 192 340 (19%) radical nephrectomy, 123 648 (12%) partial nephrectomy, 56 114 (5.6%) nephroureterectomy, and 48 420 (4.9%) pyeloplasty. The number of patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery increased exponentially, while the number of patients undergoing open surgery decreased substantially throughout the past few years. Patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery displayed slightly better, but clinically insignificant, baseline characteristics. After adjusting for the major risk factors in the multivariate regression analysis, robotic versus open surgery was associated with significantly lower odds of mortality for all five major oncological surgeries and with lower odds of intensive care unit admission, transfusion, and length of hospital stay for all six major urological surgeries. Robotic surgery is becoming the mainstay in major urological operations. Patients selected for robotic surgery in Germany presented better perioperative outcomes compared to those operated with an open approach.

Male infertility, a relatively common and multifactorial medical condition, affects approximately 15% of couples globally. Based on WHO estimates, a staggering 190 million people struggle with this health condition, and male factor is the sole or contributing factor in roughly 20–50% of these cases. Nowadays, urologists are confronted with a wide spectrum of conditions ranging from the typical infertile male to more complex cases of either unexplained or idiopathic male infertility, requiring a specific patient-tailored diagnostic approach and management. Strikingly enough, no identifiable cause in routine workup can be found in 30% to 50% of infertile males. The medical term male oxidative stress infertility (MOSI) was recently coined to describe infertile men with abnormal sperm parameters and oxidative stress (OS), including those previously classified as having idiopathic infertility. OS is a critical component of male infertility, entailing an imbalance between reactive oxygen species (ROS) and antioxidants. ROS abundance has been implicated in sperm abnormalities, while the exact impact on fertilization and pregnancy has long been a subject of considerable debate. In an attempt to counteract the deleterious effects of OS, urologists resorted to antioxidant supplementation. Mounting evidence indicates that indiscriminate consumption of antioxidants has led in some cases to sperm cell damage through a reductive-stress-induced state. The “antioxidant paradox”, one of the biggest andrological challenges, remains a lurking danger that needs to be carefully avoided and thoroughly investigated. For that reason, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) emerged as a viable ancillary tool to basic semen analysis, measuring the overall balance between oxidants and antioxidants (reductants). A novel biomarker, the Male infertility Oxidative System (MiOXSYS^®), is a paradigm shift towards that goal, offering a quantification of OS via a quick, reliable, and reproducible measurement of the ORP. Moderation or “Μέτρον” according to the ancient Greeks is the key to successfully safeguarding redox balance, with MiOXSYS^® earnestly claiming its position as a guarantor of homeostasis in the intracellular redox milieu. In the present paper, we aim to offer a narrative summary of evidence relevant to redox regulation in male reproduction, analyze the impact of OS and reductive stress on sperm function, and shed light on the “antioxidant paradox” phenomenon. Finally, we examine the most up-to-date scientific literature regarding ORP and its measurement by the recently developed MiOXSYS^® assay.

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is an under-recognized clinical entity in men with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and studies on renal transplant recipients, patients on dialysis, and patients starting dialysis report different prevalence rates and severity of ED among these groups. To determine the prevalence and severity of ED in patients with ESRD, assessed with the International Index of Erectile Function-15 and International Index of Erectile Function-5. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies assessing the prevalence of ED in ESRD individuals. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020182680). Records were identified by search in MEDLINE, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases and sources of gray literature until July 2020. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions (double arcsine transformation). We included 94 studies with 110 patient group entries and a total of 10,320 ESRD male individuals with a mean age of 48.8 ± 14.25 years. Overall, 7,253 patients experienced ED. We estimated an overall pooled ED prevalence of 71% (95% CI: 67-74%, I2 = 92%). In the subgroup analyses, the pooled prevalence was 59% (95% CI: 53-64%, I2 = 92%) among renal transplant recipients, 79% (95% CI: 75-82%, I2 = 86%) in patients on hemodialysis, 71% (95% CI: 58-83%, I2 = 86%) in patients on peritoneal dialysis, and 82% (95% CI: 75-88%, I2 = 0%) in patients with ESRD starting dialysis. The prevalence of the severity of ED was also estimated. Further assessment of heterogeneity was conducted via sensitivity analysis, cumulative meta-analysis, and meta-regression of significant risk factors. Despite its high prevalence in patients with ESRD, ED constitutes an underestimated and taboo subject in this group. Therefore, arousing clinical concern among healthcare providers involved in ESRD management is more than necessary to screen and treat ED in patients receiving renal replacement therapy. We estimated ED solely for ESRD, included the largest number of patients compared with previous studies and estimated ED prevalence as per severity and renal replacement therapy subgroups. Contrary, because we restricted our eligibility criteria to the International Index of Erectile Function, some studies assessing ED prevalence with other validated tools were not included in this meta-analysis. Moreover, the levels of heterogeneity among studies remained high after sensitivity and meta-regression analyses, and for some moderators, the results of the meta-regression might have been underpowered. ED is highly prevalent in patients with ESRD irrespective of the type of renal replacement therapy, thereby warranting clinical attention. Pyrgidis N, Mykoniatis I, Nigdelis MP, et al. Prevalence of Erectile Dysfunction in Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Sex Med 2021;18:113-120.

Introduction: There is no clear evidence in the literature that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections improve female sexual dysfunction (FSD) and female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Objectives: A systematic review was performed to study the efficacy and safety of PRP injections in women with the above pathologies, as well as to explore the optimal dosing, frequency and area of injections, and duration of treatment. Methods: A systematic search on PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library database was performed, as well as sources of grey literature from the date of database or source creation to January 2023. After title/abstract and full-text screening, clinical studies on humans evaluating the efficacy of PRP in gynecological disorders using standardized tools were included. Risk of bias was undertaken with RoB-2 for randomized-controlled trials (RCT) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. Results: Four prospective and one retrospective study explored FSD, while six prospective and one RCT evaluated female SUI. A total of 327 women with a mean age of 51 ± 12 years were included. For FSD, PRP significantly improved the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) and the Female Sexual Distress score (FSDS). For SUI, PRP led to a significant improvement in the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire—Short Form (ICIQ-SF) and the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6). The identified RCT reported a significantly higher mean score of ICIQ-SF (p < 0.05) and UDI-6 (p < 0.01) in the midurethral sling group compared to the PRP injections group. Regarding the risk of bias, the RCT was characterized by high risk, whereas the observational studies were of moderate risk. The protocol for PRP injections for FSD is the injection of 2 mL of PRP into the distal anterior vaginal wall once a month for 3 months. For female SUI, 5–6 mL of PRP should be injected into the periurethral area once a month for 3 months. Conclusions: Despite the promising initial results of PRP injections, the level of current evidence is low due to methodological issues in the available studies. It becomes clear that there is an emerging need for high-quality research examining PRP injections for the treatment of FSD and female SUI.