Objective: The most crucial steps of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are the percutaneous access and dilation of the access route. Recent literature suggests that papillary access to renal calyx is the accepted method. Despite this rule, we do not always make papillary puncture and we puncture wherever we can to achieve stone-free status and reduce unnecessary access. In this study, we present our results with papillary vs non-papillary access in patients with a kidney stone. Material and methods: Two hundred and seven patients with non-papillary access and 69 patients with papillary access who had similar demographics (age, body mass index (BMI), stone size) were selected with pair match analysis (3:1). Preoperative and postoperative data were collected from the patient's chart. Operative time (from starting surgery to nephrostomy tube), drop-in hematocrit level, transfusion rate, duration of hospital stay, perioperative and postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification) and stone-free status (no or < 3 mm residual stone) were also evaluated in both groups. Results: The mean operative time was similar in between two groups. The mean hematocrit decreases not differ between the two groups (p = 0.56). In papillary group, only 2 patients (3.2%) required transfusion and only one patient (1.4%) in the non-papillary group had a transfusion with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.43). The overall complication rates were 7.1% in the papillary group and 7.2% in the non-papillary group (p = 0.89). Postoperative mean creatinine level was similar between the two groups. Conclusions: In this study, we found that non-papillary access is a feasible option for PCNL in the terms of stone-free status and complication rates.

Background: Computed tomography (CT) evaluation systematics has become necessary to eliminate the difference of opinion among radiologists in evaluating COVID-19 CT findings. Introduction: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficiency of CO-RADS scoring system in our patients with COVID-19 as well as to examine its correlation with clinical and laboratory findings. Method: The CO-RADS category of all patients included in the study was determined by a radiologist who did not know the rtRT-PCR test result of the patients, according to the Covid-19 reporting and data system of Mathias Prokop et al. Results: A total of 1338 patients were included. CT findings were positive in 66.3%, with a mean CO-RADS score of 3,4 ± 1,7. 444 (33.1%) of the patients were in the CO-RADS 1-2, 894 (66.9%) were in the CO-RADS 3-5 group. There were positive correlations between CO-RADS score and age, CMI, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic pulmonary diseases presence of symptoms, symptom duration, presence of cough, shortness of breath, malaise, CRP, and LDH, while CORADS score was negatively correlated with lymphocyte count. The results of the ROC analysis suggested that those with age ≥40 years, symptom duration >2 days, CMI score >1 and/or comorbid conditions were more likely to have a CO-RADS score of 3-5. Conclusion: The CO-RADS classification system is a CT findings assessment system that can be used to diagnose COVID-19 in patients with symptoms of cough, shortness of breath, myalgia and fatigue for more than two days.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to compare perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of ultrapreservation and Retzius-sparing techniques in robotic radical prostatectomy for patients with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated data from 189 patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy using either the ultrapreservation (n = 97) or the Retzius-sparing (n = 92) technique by a single surgeon at a single center between January 2022 and November 2024. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical technique. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes (continence and potency), oncological outcomes, and complications were compared. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in baseline demographics between the groups (p > 0.05). The ultrapreservation group demonstrated superior perioperative outcomes: operative time (174.8 vs. 188.7 min, p < 0.001), console time (112.4 vs. 132.0 min, p < 0.001), blood loss (119.0 vs. 133.3 mL, p = 0.002), and hospital stay (2.3 vs. 2.5 days, p = 0.004) were all significantly shorter. Complication rates were comparable between groups (8.2% vs. 10.9%). In terms of continence, the Retzius-sparing group achieved earlier recovery after catheter removal (56.5% vs. 27.8%, p < 0.001), while long-term continence outcomes were similar (12-month: 93.8% vs. 91.3%, p = 0.703). Potency recovery favored the ultrapreservation group at 3 and 6 months postoperatively (3 months: 76.9% vs. 41.2%, p < 0.001; 6 months: 79.5% vs. 60.0%, p = 0.013). Oncological outcomes were comparable between groups. Conclusions: Both ultrapreservation and Retzius-sparing techniques provide safe oncological outcomes with distinct functional advantages. The ultrapreservation technique offers perioperative advantages and superior potency recovery, while the Retzius-sparing approach facilitates faster early continence recovery. Clinical decision-making should be individualized: ultrapreservation may be preferred in younger patients with good preoperative potency prioritizing erectile function preservation, while Retzius-sparing may benefit patients prioritizing immediate continence recovery, particularly those with baseline erectile dysfunction or advanced age.

To evaluate the necessity of confirmation for a negative urine culture test outcome after an appropriate antibiotic regimen for urinary tract infection (UTI) prior to endoscopic stone removal procedures. 170 cases receiving an appropriate antibiotic treatment for culture proven UTI based on test outcomes before endoscopic stone removal were evaluated in two groups: Group 1 (n = 85) Patients in whom a second urine culture test was performed to ensure “negative urine culture” status prior to the procedures after receiving antibiotic therapy and Group 2 (n = 85). Patients receiving the same antibiotic therapy without any additional urine culture test before the procedures. Cases were comparatively evaluated with respect to the statistical significance of post-operative infective complications (fever, sepsis), duration of hospital stay and readmission rates during early post-operative period. Our findings demonstrated no significant difference regarding the rate of infective complications (presence of fever, incidence of septic findings), hospitalization period and readmission rates between the two groups. Although the presence of a negative urine status has been confirmed by urine culture test in group 1 cases, no additional urine culture test was performed with this aim in group 2 cases (negative urine culture was confirmed only with urinalysis) and the outcomes regarding the infective problems were found to be similiar. Our current findings indicate that a second urine culture test may not be a “must” if the patients receive an appropriate antibiotic regimen based on the sensitivity test outcomes for a reasonable time period.