Background: The aim of our study is to evaluate the prevalence and predictive factors of short- (30 d) and mid-term continence in a contemporary cohort of patients treated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) without any posterior or anterior reconstruction at our referral academic center. Methods: Data from patients undergoing RALP between January 2017 and March 2021 were prospectively collected. RALP was performed by three highly experienced surgeons following the principles of the Montsouris technique, with a bladder-neck-sparing intent and maximal preservation of the membranous urethra (if oncologically safe) without any anterior/posterior reconstruction. (Self-assessed urinary incontinence (UI) was defined as the need of one or more pads per die (excluding the need for a safety pad/die. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the independent predictors of early incontinence among routinely collected patient- and tumor-related variables). Results: A total of 925 patients were included; of these, 353 underwent RALP (38.2%) without nerve-sparing intent. The median patient age and BMI were 68 years (IQR 63–72) and 26 (IQR 24.0–28.0), respectively. Overall, 159 patients (17.2%) reported early (30 d) incontinence. In multivariable analysis adjusting for patient- and tumor-related features, a non-nerve-sparing procedure (OR: 1.57 [95% CI: 1.03–2.59], p = 0.035) was independently associated with the risk of urinary incontinence in the short-term period, while the absence of cardiovascular diseases before surgery (OR: 0.46 [95% CI: 0.320.67], p ≤ 0.01) was a protective factor for this outcome. At a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 10–24), 94.5% of patients reported to be continent. Conclusions: In experienced hands, most patients fully recover urinary continence after RALP at mid-term follow-up. On the contrary, the proportion of patients who reported early incontinence in our series was modest but not negligible. The implementation of surgical techniques advocating anterior and/or posterior fascial reconstruction might improve the early continence rate in candidates for RALP.

Background and Objectives: The incidence of urothelial cancer in males is higher than in females; however, females have a higher risk of recurrence and progression. The aim of our study was to report the effect of gender on the oncological outcome in advanced urothelial cancer. Materials and Methods: In our retrospective study, all patients had undergone primary surgical treatment for urothelial cancer and were affected by stage IV disease at the time of chemotherapy. Response to therapy and toxicity were evaluated. Subgroups were analyzed for tumour presentation, first- and second-line treatment response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results. Seventy-five patients, 18 (24%) females and 57 (76%) males, were considered. Investigation into the distribution of individual characteristics according to gender revealed a significant difference only for smoking, with a prevalence of smokers in women (p = 0.029). At the end of follow-up, OS was higher in females (27.5% vs. 17.4%; p = 0.047). Smoking did not significantly influence OS (p = 0.055), while univariate Cox regression analysis confirmed that males had a higher risk of death (HR = 2.28, 95% CI 0.99–129 5.25), with borderline statistical significance (p = 0.053). Men showed higher PFS than women both after first-line (p = 0.051) and second-line chemotherapy (p = 0.018), with a lower risk of progression (HR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.10–0.86; p = 0.026). No differences were found between genders with regard to toxicity. Conclusions. In our series, PFS rates following first- and second-line therapies for advanced urothelial carcinoma confirmed that females have a greater risk of progression than males.

Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines defined priority groups to guide the prioritization of surgery for urological malignancies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 prioritization recommendations on tumor pathological characteristics in a real-world setting at our academic referral institution. Methods: We compared baseline and pathological tumor features of all patients with urological malignancies treated during the pandemic period (2020–2021) versus in the post-pandemic period (2022–2023). Our institution adhered to the international recommendations and prioritized those cases defined as “high-risk”. Results: Data from 9196 patients treated for urological malignancies were reviewed and grouped according to period of surgery (4401 in the pandemic period vs. 4785 in the post-pandemic period). The overall number of surgical procedures was comparable for all diseases except for the number of radical prostatectomies (1117 vs. 1405; p = 0.03) and partial nephrectomies (609 vs. 759; p = 0.02), which were significantly lower in the pandemic period. Regarding tumor pathological features, none of the recorded variables were found to differ according to period of surgery, including disease stage, tumor grading, presence of necrosis, lymphovascular invasion, and histological variants. Conclusions: A correct policy of prioritization of oncological pathologies during emergency periods and a centralization of oncological cases in reference centers reduce the possible risk of worsening cancer disease features related to the reorganization of healthcare resources.

Differences have often been reported in the outcomes of bladder cancer (BC) patients according to gender. This study aims to provide data on patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) in a high-volume tertiary urologic center and to assess whether gender discrepancies do exist in terms of surgical options and clinical outcomes. Consecutive BC patients treated between 2016 and 2020 at a single center (Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy) were included in the study. The impact of gender on disease stage at diagnosis, overall survival (OS), and type of surgery was analyzed. The study series comprised 447 patients (85 females and 362 males). At a median follow-up of 28.3 months (IQR: 33.5), OS was 52.6% and cancer-specific survival was 67.6%. Significant differences in OS emerged for age, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), pT, and pN. OS rates were higher in patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery and in those receiving open orthotopic neobladder (ONB) (p = 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were found between male and female patients regarding surgical offer in any age group, surgical time, early postoperative complications, pathologic stage, and OS. After adjustment for pathologic tumor stage and treatment modalities, female and male patients showed similar oncologic outcomes. Further studies should be undertaken to evaluate functional results in women subjected to RC.

Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines defined priority groups to guide the prioritization of surgery for urological malignancies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 prioritization recommendations on tumor pathological characteristics in a real-world setting at our academic referral Institution. Methods: We compared baseline and pathological tumor features of all patients with urological malignancies treated during the pandemic period (2020-2021) versus in the post-pandemic period (2022-2023). Our institution adhered to the International recommendations and prioritized those cases defined as “high-risk”. Results: Data of 9196 patients treated for urological malignancies were reviewed and grouped according to period of surgery (4401 in the pandemic vs 4785 in non-pandemic period). The overall number of surgical procedures was comparable for all diseases except for the number of radical prostatectomy (1117 vs 1405; p=0.03) and partial nephrectomy (609 vs 759; p=0.02) which were significantly lower in the pandemic period. Regarding tumors’ pathological features, none of the recorded variable was found to differ according to period of surgery, including disease stage, tumor grading, presence of necrosis, lymphovascular invasion, histological variants. Conclusion: A correct policy of prioritization of oncological pathologies during emergency periods and a centralization of oncological cases in reference centers reduces the possible risk of worsening cancer disease features related to the reorganization of healthcare resources.

Background: With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), its applications in andrology are expanding across diagnostic assessment, preoperative planning, intraoperative assistance, and postoperative management. This narrative review aims to synthesize current evidence regarding AI applications across the spectrum of andrological surgery. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies published between January 2020 and October 2025. The search strategy utilized combinations of keywords including “artificial intelligence,” “andrology,” “erectile dysfunction,” “male infertility,” “microsurgery,” and “robotic-assisted surgery.” Original research and review articles published in English were selected based on their clinical relevance to surgical practice. Results: AI has shown promise in the evaluation and management of erectile dysfunction (ED), male infertility-related microsurgery, and complex reconstructive procedures. AI-based models can improve risk prediction and diagnosis of ED, standardize semen analysis, support individualized selection of surgical candidates for varicocele repair and other interventions, and augment microsurgery through enhanced visualization and decision support. In the postoperative phase, AI-driven tools are being explored for complication prediction, functional recovery monitoring, and long-term quality-of-life follow-up, enabling more patient-centered, continuous care. Conclusions: AI holds significant promise for advancing precision medicine in andrological surgery by enhancing objective assessment and intraoperative guidance. However, large-scale, standardized datasets and rigorous multi-institutional validation are needed. Establishing robust ethical and legal frameworks will be essential to ensure the safe and effective integration of AI into routine andrological care.