Background/Objectives: Radical prostatectomy is a standard treatment for localized prostate cancer. We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes and functional results between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 120 patients who underwent LRP (n = 60) or RARP (n = 60). Perioperative parameters, including operative time, hospitalization duration, blood transfusion rate, wound healing complications, urinary catheterization duration, urinary tract infections (UTIs), and urinary incontinence, were assessed. Statistical analyses included Student’s t-, Mann–Whitney U, and χ² tests. Results: RARP was associated with significantly shorter operative time, compared with LRP (147.25 vs. 188.30 min, p < 0.0001). No significant differences were observed in hospitalization duration, transfusion rates, or overall complication rates. However, impaired wound healing was less frequent in the RARP group, with a 10% lower incidence, compared with the LRP group (p = 0.0946). Similarly, UTIs occurred less often in the RARP group (six vs. one cases; p = 0.0544). Urinary incontinence was significantly less frequent following RARP, with its incidence being more than twice as low, compared with the LRP group (p = 0.0032). Additionally, the RARP group had significantly lower International Prostate Symptom Scores, with a mean difference of 7.83 points, indicating improved urinary function. No significant differences were found in sexual function (IIEF-5 scores). Conclusions: RARP offers advantages over LRP, including reduced operative time, lower rates of wound healing complications, decreased incidence of urinary incontinence, and improved postoperative urinary function. Further studies with larger cohorts are warranted to confirm these findings and assess long-term functional and oncological outcomes.

Introduction: The recommended duration for pulmonary rehabilitation stands at a minimum of six weeks; however, this stipulation may pose constraints in various countries due to financial limitations imposed by insurance companies and/or national health funds, as is the case in Poland. Consequently, our study endeavors to analyze the short-term outcomes stemming from a condensed three-week PR regimen administered to patients diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, and the concomitance of these conditions (COPD-A)—this is an approach that is standard in the rehabilitation protocols endorsed by our national health fund. Methods: Patients diagnosed with COPD, asthma, and COPD-A, referred to the PR program, underwent retrospective analysis to evaluate the short-term efficacy of a three-week PR program. Patients underwent comprehensive assessment by respiratory physicians and rehabilitation consultants, leading to individualized PR programs. Clinical evaluations occurred at program onset and completion. Results: 125 patients participated: 37 COPD, 61 asthma, and 27 COPD-A. Significant improvements were observed in the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), the consensus-based GINA symptom control tool (GINA-SCT), the Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale, forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and the 6-min walk test (6 MWT) distance, as well as in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores. All groups experienced reduced dyspnea severity and improved exercise tolerance. FEV1 and FVC improved in asthma and COPD-A, but not significantly in COPD. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictive factors for PR response. Conclusions: The study supports the short-term efficacy of the three-week PR program in improving clinical outcomes, exercise tolerance, and quality of life in COPD and asthma patients. Tailoring interventions based on predictors of PR response can optimize outcomes. Further research, particularly of the COPD-A group, is needed for individualized approaches. Larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm our findings.

Background and Objectives: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is widely used in prostate cancer diagnosis, but biopsy findings may still underestimate tumor aggressiveness. This study evaluated the association of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) assessment with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and histopathological upgrading after radical prostatectomy. Methods: The retrospective analysis comprised 564 patients who underwent mpMRI–transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy followed by radical prostatectomy between 2021 and 2025. All included patients subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy, so the cohort represents a surgically selected population. Clinical variables, PI-RADS score, biopsy ISUP Grade Group, and final prostatectomy pathology were assessed. Clinically significant disease was defined as ISUP Grade Group ≥ 2. Histopathological upgrading was defined as an increase of at least one ISUP Grade Group between biopsy and final prostatectomy pathology. Results: csPCa was found in 385 patients (68.3%). Patients with csPCa had higher prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) values than those without csPCa. PI-RADS score was significantly associated with csPCa and remained independently associated with csPCa in multivariable analysis. Histopathological upgrading occurred in 164 patients (29.1%), and PI-RADS score was also independently associated with upgrading. Model discrimination was limited. Conclusions: Preoperative mpMRI with PI-RADS assessment was associated with both csPCa and biopsy underestimation. Although PI-RADS was independently associated with both outcomes, its modest discriminatory performance indicates that it should be interpreted together with other clinical and pathological parameters rather than as a standalone predictive tool.