Background and Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in patients with prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library for papers published before May 2021. Only studies of patients with prostate cancer that assessed perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes and reported outcome values were included. We used a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model to synthesize data from multiple studies, enabling both direct and indirect comparisons of the three surgical approaches (RARP, LRP, ORP) to provide robust estimates of their relative efficacy. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021282555). Results: A total of 80 studies were finally included in the present study. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were lower for RARP than for ORP (RR 0.713, 95% CrI 0.587–0.869) and LRP (RR 0.672, 95% CrI 0.505–0.895). Compared with ORP, RARP had a significantly lower positive surgical margin (RR 0.893, 95% CrI 0.807–0.985). When compared to ORP, RARP and LRP showed no significant difference in continence (RR 1.057, 95% CrI 0.997–1.124; RR 0.921, 95% CrI 0.845–1.007). When compared to ORP, RARP was significantly more effective on potency (RR 1.201, 95% CrI 1.047–1.402). The potency rate was significantly higher for RARP than for ORP (RR 1.201, 95% CrI 1.047–1.402) and LRP (RR 1.438, 95% CrI 1.191–1.762). There was no difference in the estimated blood loss or the total and major complication rates between RARP, ORP, and LRP. The operation time was longest for LRP. There was no difference in the operation time between RARP and ORP. Conclusions: RARP may be better or comparable to ORP and LRP in terms of oncologic outcomes (PSM and BCR), functional outcomes (potency and incontinence), and perioperative outcomes (EBL, operation time, and total and major complications).

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.

Jung HD, et al. Yonsei Med J. 2022 May;63(5):440-445. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2022.63.5.440

Background and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the therapeutic effects and safety profiles of silodosin and tamsulosin for medical expulsive therapy (MET) of ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify articles published before July 2022 that described randomized controlled trials comparing silodosin and tamsulosin for MET of ureteral stones. Endpoints were stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, and total complication rate. Results: In total, 14 studies were included in our analysis. The size of ureteral stones was <1 cm. Compared with tamsulosin, silodosin resulted in a significantly higher stone expulsion rate (p < 0.01, odds ratio (OR) = 2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.91 to 3.06, I² = 0%) and significantly shorter stone expulsion time (p < 0.01, mean difference = −3.04, 95% CI = −4.46 to −1.63, I² = 89%). The total complication rate did not significantly differ between silodosin and tamsulosin (p = 0.33, OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.52, I² = 7%). Conclusions: Compared with tamsulosin, silodosin resulted in significantly better expulsion of ureteral stones <1 cm. The total complication rate did not significantly differ between silodosin and tamsulosin. Thus, silodosin may be superior to tamsulosin for MET of ureter stones <1 cm.

Kim J, et al. Yonsei Med J. 2022 Nov;63:e26. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2022.0367

Jeong JY, et al. Investig Clin Urol. 2024 Jan;65(1):62-68. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20230298