This comprehensive review critically examines the transformative impact of artificial intelligence (AI) and radiomics in the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of bladder, kidney, and prostate cancers. These cutting-edge technologies are revolutionizing the landscape of cancer care, enhancing both precision and personalization in medical treatments. Our review provides an in-depth analysis of the latest advancements in AI and radiomics, with a specific focus on their roles in urological oncology. We discuss how AI and radiomics have notably improved the accuracy of diagnosis and staging in bladder cancer, especially through advanced imaging techniques like multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and CT scans. These tools are pivotal in assessing muscle invasiveness and pathological grades, critical elements in formulating treatment plans. In the realm of kidney cancer, AI and radiomics aid in distinguishing between renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes and grades. The integration of radiogenomics offers a comprehensive view of disease biology, leading to tailored therapeutic approaches. Prostate cancer diagnosis and management have also seen substantial benefits from these technologies. AI-enhanced MRI has significantly improved tumor detection and localization, thereby aiding in more effective treatment planning. The review also addresses the challenges in integrating AI and radiomics into clinical practice, such as the need for standardization, ensuring data quality, and overcoming the “black box” nature of AI. We emphasize the importance of multicentric collaborations and extensive studies to enhance the applicability and generalizability of these technologies in diverse clinical settings. In conclusion, AI and radiomics represent a major paradigm shift in oncology, offering more precise, personalized, and patient-centric approaches to cancer care. While their potential to improve diagnostic accuracy, patient outcomes, and our understanding of cancer biology is profound, challenges in clinical integration and application persist. We advocate for continued research and development in AI and radiomics, underscoring the need to address existing limitations to fully leverage their capabilities in the field of oncology.

Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) was introduced to decrease the morbidity of the standard PCNL (sPCNL). Thereafter, many modifications and techniques have been presented with the introduction of different miniaturized PCNL (mPCNL) techniques, such as micro-PCNL and ultra-mini-PCNL (UMP). As of present, none of the techniques has displaced the sPCNL. Nonetheless, mini-PCNL has continuously widening indications and has been proposed to have significant advantages over sPCNL. In the current review, each technique is presented while discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. A comprehensive review of the current literature has been performed. Articles related to the topic were retrieved and critically analyzed. Less peri-operative bleeding and shorter hospital stay were the most important advantages advocated for mini-PCNL. Although the performance of mini-PCNL is safe, the utilization of micro-PCNL and UMP should be done with caution. Cite this article as: Kallidonis P, Tsaturyan A, Lattarulo M, Liatsikos E. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): Techniques and outcomes. Turk J Urol 2020; 46(Supp. 1): S58-S63.

The purpose of this narrative review is to describe the different nerve-sparing techniques applied during radical prostatectomy and document their functional impact on postoperative outcomes. We performed a PubMed search of the literature using the keywords “nerve-sparing”, “techniques”, “prostatectomy” and “outcomes”. Other potentially eligible studies were retrieved using the reference list of the included studies. Nerve-sparing techniques can be distinguished based on the fascial planes of dissection (intrafascial, interfascial or extrafascial), the direction of dissection (retrograde or antegrade), the timing of the neurovascular bundle dissection off the prostate (early vs. late release), the use of cautery, the application of traction and the number of the neurovascular bundles which are preserved. Despite this rough categorisation, many techniques have been developed which cannot be integrated in one of the categories described above. Moreover, emerging technologies have entered the nerve-sparing field, making its future even more promising. Bilateral nerve-sparing of maximal extent, athermal dissection of the neurovascular bundles with avoidance of traction and utilization of the correct planes remain the basic principles for achieving optimum functional outcomes. Given that potency and continence outcomes after radical prostatectomy are multifactorial endpoints in addition to the difficulty in their postoperative assessment and the well-documented discrepancy existing in their definition, safe conclusions about the superiority of one technique over the other cannot be easily drawn. Further studies, comparing the different nerve-sparing techniques, are necessary.

Background and Objective: The cost of imaging and interventions in the surgical field varies between countries and sometimes within different regions of the same country. Procedural cost takes into account equipment, consumables, operating room, surgical, anesthetic and nursing teams, radiology, medications, and hospital stay. Health care systems therefore face an incredible burden related to investigations and surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to collect costs of imaging and interventions for kidney calculi across different hospitals and health care systems in the world. Methods: An online shared Google spreadsheet was created by the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urology urolithiasis group. The survey consisted of the cost of four radiological imaging (ultrasound of the urinary tract [USS], plain X-ray radiography of the abdomen including kidneys, ureter, and bladder [XRKUB], noncontrast-enhanced computerized tomography [CTKUB], and contrast-enhanced CT with urographic phase [CTU]) and seven interventions (endoscopic laser treatment of renal stones, ureteroscopic treatment or extraction of ureteral stones, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), insertion of ureteral stent, diagnostic ureteroscopy, and cystolitholapaxy). A chosen representative from each country collected and collated the data, and this was converted to Euros (€). Key Findings and Limitations: Data were collected from 32 countries, which include Turkey, Armenia, Nepal, Uzbekistan, Brazil, Chile, Qatar, Peru, Israel, Singapore, Thailand, Colombia, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Asia, North America, 15 countries from the European continent, and the United States. The mean cost of USS, XRKUB, CTKUB, and CTU was 51.3 € (range: 2–160 €), 27.1 € (range: 2.5–187 €), 105.8 € (range: 19–405 €), and 171.5 € (range: 19–674 €), respectively. Similarly, the cost of endoscopic laser treatment of renal stones, ureteroscopic treatment/extraction of ureteral stones, PCNL, insertion of ureteral stent, diagnostic ureteroscopy, and cystolitholapaxy was 1942.6 € (range: 100–7887 €), 1626.8 € (range: 80–9787 €), 2884.6 € (range: 110–12642 €), 631 € (range: 110–2787 €), 861.6 € (range: 3–2667 €), and 876 € (range: 19–3457 €), respectively. Wide differences in cost between countries were found within the study. Conclusions and Clinical Implications: This study highlights the significant economic impact of kidney stone management on health care systems worldwide. There seem to be significant disparities between costs, and this study shows the social and economic inequalities in health care access, which can differ significantly between private and public health care. These results can aid policymakers to address these disparities and perhaps to learn from other health care providers.