Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a well-known complication of radical prostatectomy (RP). Oral 5-phosphodiesterase inhibitors are currently the most widely used penile rehabilitation treatment for ED following RP, but they are less effective than for those with general ED. Low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave treatment (LI-ESWT), causing a biological change that induces neovascularization, has recently been used as a treatment for ED. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficiency of LI-ESWT in ED following RP. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up until December 2021. The endpoint was the change in IIEF scores after LI-ESWT. Five papers (460 patients) were included in the final analysis. In IIEF scores performed 3–4 months after LI-ESWT, the group receiving LI-ESWT showed statistically significantly better results than the control (WMD = −2.04; 95% CI, −3.72 to −0.35; p = 0.02). However, there were a total of two studies that measured the results after 9–12 months. There was no statistical difference between the two groups (WMD = −5.37; 95% CI, −12.42 to 1.69; p = 0.14). The results of this analysis indicate that LI-ESWT showed a statistically significant effect on early recovery in penile rehabilitation of ED following RP. However, the level of evidence was low. Therefore, careful interpretation of the results is required.

Jung HD, et al. Investig Clin Urol. 2023 Jun;64:e45. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20230102

Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is widely used for treating muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to December 2020. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the oncologic outcomes of ddMVAC (dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin) and GC (gemcitabine and cisplatin), which are the most widely used NAC regimens. Endpoints included pathologic complete response (pCR), pathologic downstaging (pDS), overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Five studies, with a total of 1206 patients, were included for meta-analysis. pCR was observed in 35.2% of the ddMVAC arm and in 25.1% of the GC arm, and pCR was significantly higher in ddMVAC than in GC (odds ratio (OR), 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11–1.89; p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in pDS (OR, 1.37; CI, 0.84–2.21; p = 0.20). OS was significantly higher in ddMVAC than in GC (hazard ratio, 2.16; CI, 1.42–3.29; p = 0.0004). Only one study reported CSS outcomes. The results of this analysis indicate that ddMVAC is superior to GC in terms of pCR and OS, suggesting that ddMVAC is more effective than GC in NAC for MIBC. However, this should be interpreted with caution because of the inherent limitations of retrospective studies.

Kang DH, et al. World J Mens Health. 2018 Jan;36:e11. https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.170005

Chung DY, et al. Investig Clin Urol. 2023 May;64(3):242-254. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20230058

Background and Objectives: Disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been widely used because of their cost-effectiveness and higher sterility potential compared with reusable flexible ureteroscopes. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes and complication rates in patients who undergo reusable or disposable flexible ureteroscopic stone surgeries (fURS) for urinary stone disease. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022331291). Clinical trials comparing reusable and disposable fURS for stone disease were found from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science up to March 2022. Participants were patients with upper urinary tract stones; the interventions were reusable or disposable fURS. Outcomes, including stone-free rate, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate, were compared for analysis. Results: Overall, 111 studies were identified, but after removing duplicate studies, 75 studies remained. Thirty-two of these studies were excluded. Of the 43 screened studies, 11 met the eligibility criteria. There was no difference in the stone-free rate (SFR) between disposable and reusable fURS (p = 0.14; OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.04). For operation time, no difference was identified between reusable and disposable fURS groups (p = 0.12; MD = −5.31; 95% CI, −12.08 to 1.46). For hospital stay, there was also no difference between the two groups (p = 0.61; MD = −0.03; 95% CI, −0.17 to 0.10). There was no significant difference in complication rate between the two groups (p = 0.85; OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.61). Conclusions: There were no differences in the SFR, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate between reusable and disposable fURS. Disposable fURS may be a comparable alternative to reusable fURS.