Background: Fluoroquinolone resistance is an issue of concern amongst physicians worldwide. In urology, fluoroquinolones are often used in the treatment of acute pyelonephritis and prostatitis, as well as infections caused by multidrug‐resistant pathogens.Aims: We aim to highlight the importance of antimicrobial stewardship and the need for ongoing biomedical research to discover novel agents in our losing battle against resistant pathogens.Materials and methods: In this review, we survey the literature and summarise fluoroquinolone resistance as it pertains to pyelonephritis and prostatitis, as well as alternative treatment strategies and prevention of multidrug resistance.Results: The rise of fluoroquinolone resistance in bacteria has reduced the available treatment options, often necessitating hospital admission for intravenous antibiotics, which places an additional burden on both patients and the healthcare system. Many countries such as Australia have attempted to limit fluoroquinolone resistance by imposing strict prescribing criteria, though these efforts have not been entirely successful. Solutions to overcome resistance include prevention, combination therapy and the development of novel antimicrobial agents.Conclusions: Prevention of the proliferation of resistant organisms by antimicrobial stewardship is paramount, and urologists are obliged to be aware of responsible prescribing practices such as referring to local guidelines when prescribing. By reserving fluoroquinolones for infections in which they are truly indicated and by prescribing based on both patient and local environmental factors, we can preserve this effective resource for future use.

Background/Objectives: Introducing new transformative surgical technology involves navigating a complex process from design to implementation, often hindered by various barriers that delay the transition into clinical practice. This review critically examines the barriers, proposes a unified guide for medical device implementation in the Australian healthcare system utilising the validated Medtech Innovation Guide, and compares regulatory frameworks in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Methods: We conducted a literature review using MEDLINE and EMBASE with MeSH terms or emtree terms and keywords “new OR novel” AND “surgical device OR medical device OR health technology OR surgical technology OR surgical instrument OR transformative technology OR technological innovation OR technological change” AND “implementation OR adoption OR innovation adoption” AND “surgery OR surgical” AND “Australia”. We also assessed governmental websites (gov.au) and documents as well as the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) website, policies, and position statements. Furthermore, Australian medical technology start-up companies were asked for any published roadmaps. Results: Four key stakeholder groups were identified: medical professionals, government, hospitals, and patients/consumers. Barriers include surgeon scepticism, regulatory hurdles (e.g., Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods), hospital clearance processes, and meeting patient expectations. To address these challenges, we propose a five-phase system: surgical device development (phase one), compliance with regulatory processes (phase two), research and experimentation (phase three), finalisation for product launch (phase four), and product launch and assessment (phase five). Conclusions: By following our five-phase guide, innovators may better navigate the complexities of integrating transformative surgical technologies into Australian healthcare. Although there are limitations, this approach is based on the validated Medtech Innovation Guide and may help both experienced and inexperienced practitioners better implement innovative technology; however, real-world validation is required.