Background: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (S‐ICDs) have been of great interest as an alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (TV‐ICDs). No meta‐analyses synthesizing data from high‐quality studies have yet been published. Methods and Results: An electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials or propensity score–matched studies comparing S‐ICD against TV‐ICD in patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator indication. The primary outcomes were device‐related complications and lead‐related complications. Secondary outcomes were inappropriate shocks, appropriate shock, all‐cause mortality, and infection. All outcomes were pooled under random‐effects meta‐analyses and reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. Kaplan–Meier curves of device‐related complications were digitized to retrieve individual patient data and pooled under a 1‐stage meta‐analysis using Cox models to determine hazard ratios (HRs) of patients undergoing S‐ICD versus TV‐ICD. A total of 5 studies (2387 patients) were retrieved. S‐ICD had a similar rate of device‐related complications compared with TV‐ICD (RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.33–1.04]; P =0.070), but a significantly lower lead‐related complication rate (RR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07–0.29]; P <0.0001). The individual patient data–based 1‐stage stratified Cox model for device‐related complications across 4 studies yielded no significant difference (shared‐frailty HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.61–1.09]; P =0.167), but visual inspection of pooled Kaplan–Meier curves suggested a divergence favoring S‐ICD. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between both modalities. Conclusions: S‐ICD is clinically superior to TV‐ICD in terms of lead‐related complications while demonstrating comparable efficacy and safety. For device‐related complications, S‐ICD may be beneficial over TV‐ICD in the long term. These indicate that S‐ICD is likely a suitable substitute for TV‐ICD in patients requiring implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implantation without a pacing indication.

Introduction: Sorafenib was historically the standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) until it was superseded by the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. Thereafter, several novel first-line combination therapies have demonstrated favorable outcomes. The efficacies of these treatments in relation to current and previous standards of care are unknown, necessitating an overarching evaluation. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials for phase III randomized controlled trials investigating first-line systemic therapies for aHCC. Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were graphically reconstructed to retrieve individual patient-level data. Derived hazard ratios (HRs) for each study were pooled in a random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA). NMAs were also conducted using study-level HRs for various subgroups, according to viral etiology, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels, macrovascular invasion, and extrahepatic spread. Treatment strategies were ranked using p scores. Results: Among 4,321 articles identified, 12 trials and 9,589 patients were included for analysis. Only two therapies showed OS benefit over sorafenib: combined anti-programmed-death and anti-VEGF pathway inhibitor monoclonal antibodies (Anti-PD-(L)1/VEGF Ab), including atezolizumab-bevacizumab and sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar (HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.53–0.76) and tremelimumab-durvalumab (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.66–0.92). Anti-PD-(L)1/VEGF Ab showed OS benefit over all other therapies except tremelimumab-durvalumab. Low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%) and inconsistency (Cochran’s Q = 0.52, p = 0.773) was observed. p scores for OS ranked Anti-PD-(L)1/VEGF Ab as the best treatment in all subgroups, except hepatitis B where atezolizumab-cabozantinib ranked highest for both OS and PFS, as well as nonviral HCC and AFP ≥400 μg/L where tremelimumab-durvalumab ranked highest for OS. Conclusion: This NMA supports Anti-PD-(L)1/VEGF Ab as the first-line therapy for aHCC and demonstrates a comparable benefit for tremelimumab-durvalumab which also extends to certain subgroups. Results of the subgroup analysis may guide treatment according to baseline characteristics, while pending further studies.

Radiomics is increasingly applied to the diagnosis, management, and outcome prediction of various urological conditions. Urolithiasis is a common benign condition with a high incidence and recurrence rate. The purpose of this scoping review is to evaluate the current evidence of the application of radiomics in urolithiasis, especially its utility in diagnostics and therapeutics. An electronic literature search on radiomics in the setting of urolithiasis was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus from inception to 21 March 2022. A total of 7 studies were included. Radiomics has been successfully applied in the field of urolithiasis to differentiate phleboliths from calculi and classify stone types and composition pre-operatively. More importantly, it has also been utilized to predict outcomes and complications after endourological procedures. Although radiomics in urolithiasis is still in its infancy, it has the potential for large-scale implementation. Its greatest potential lies in the correlation with conventional established diagnostic and therapeutic factors.

Introduction: Incidence of urolithiasis in children has increased in recent years and with technological advancements and miniaturization of surgical instrumental, pediatric urologists have acquired an impressive arsenal for their treatment. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has gained widespread popularity as it is a natural extension of semirigid ureteroscopy (URS) and can be done via natural orifice minimizing the morbidity of percutaneous access. The aim of this narrative review is to describe how RIRS has evolved over the decades in children and if the age related anatomical differences impacts reported outcomes especially stone free rate (SFR) and complications. Materials and method: An electronic literature search from inception to 15 October 2021 was performed using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms in several combinations on PUBMED, EMBASE and Web of science without language restrictions. 2022 articles were founded and 165 papers were full-text screening. Finally, 2 pediatric urologists included 51 articles that summarize the available literature regarding the development and use of RIRS in children. Results: RIRS as of today is well established as a superior modality for all stones in all locations compared to ESWL both in children and adults. The passive dilation have decreased the need of active ureteral dilation, but the need to perform pre-stenting is not defined yet. Regarding the use of the ureteral access sheath, the literature tends to lean towards its placement in most cases, but we do not know its long-term effects over the growth of children. Finally the stone free rate has increased as the experience of pediatric urologists increases, as well as the number of complications has decreased. Conclusion: RIRS in pediatrics has crossed many milestones , yet many areas need further research and larger data is required to make RIRS the procedure of choice for renal stone management in children across all age group