Purpose: Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of Rezum therapy in patients with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in comparison to Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). Methods: The retrospective study included 338 patients (204 HoLEP and 134 Rezum) operated on for BPH between January 2020 and November 2024. A 1:1 matching of treated patients (Rezum) to HoLEP patients based on the closest propensity score value was conducted for 131 successful matching pairs. The groups were compared regarding; Age, Prostate volume, PSA, Catheter-dependence, Qmax, PVR, IIEF, IPSS, PGI-I, operation time (OT) and hospital time (HS). Results: Concerning perioperative data, there was a statistically significant difference between the Rezum and HoLEP groups regarding OT (8.29 ± 1.21 vs. 68.01 ± 31.01 min; P < 0.001) and HS (1 vs. 2.61 ± 1.53 days; P < 0.001) with higher values for HoLEP. At the same time, the catheter duration was longer in the Rezum group (7.6 ± 2.19 vs. 3.49 ± 1.16 days; P < 0.001). In terms of clinical outcomes, there was a statistically significant improvement in Qmax, IPSS and a decrease in PVR at 12 months for the HoLEP group compared to the Rezum group (16.82 ± 2.27 ml/sn vs. 22.14 ± 7.17 ml/sn, P < 0.001; 12.1 ± 2.1 vs. 7.1 ± 1.9, P < 0.001; 43.05 ± 32.62 ml vs. 29.73 ± 43.73 ml, P = 0.006; respectively). PGI-I scores ( p = 0.620) and antegrade ejaculation ( p < 0.001) were in favour of Rezum therapy. Conclusion: The HoLEP technique demonstrates superior functional outcomes compared to Rezum, particularly in cases with larger prostates. However, Rezum is an ejaculation-sparing technique demonstrating high tolerability, and patient satisfaction even in larger prostates.

Background/Objectives: This study evaluates and compares the surgical outcomes of open pyelolithotomy, laparoscopic pyelolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of pelvic ectopic kidney stones. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 47 adult patients with pelvic ectopic kidney stones who underwent surgery between January 2009 and January 2024. Patients were categorized as open pyelolithotomy (n = 15), laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (n = 14), or RIRS (n = 18). Stone-free (SF) rates were assessed in the early postoperative period (1st or 2nd day), in the 1st month, and in the 3rd month. Demographic data, stone characteristics, operative data, and complications were recorded. Results: RIRS had significantly shorter operative and hospitalization times but a lower SF rate in the 3rd month (44.4%) compared to laparoscopy (92.9%) and open pyelolithotomy (86.7%). Additional procedures were required in 50% of RIRS cases to achieve SF status, while none were needed in the other groups. Complications included three Grade 2 cases (two bleeding; transient creatinine elevation) in open pyelolithotomy, two Grade 2 (urinary leakage; infection) and two Grade 3 cases (conversion to open surgery; trapped stent removal) in laparoscopic pyelolithotomy, and one Grade 2 case (febrile infection) in RIRS. Conclusions: Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy demonstrated the highest efficacy and comparable complication rates; making it the preferred approach for pelvic ectopic kidney stones. Open pyelolithotomy remains a valuable alternative where laparoscopic expertise or resources are limited. Although less invasive, RIRS showed lower efficacy due to the challenging anatomy of pelvic ectopic kidneys.

Digital health literacy (e-HL) is an increasingly popular analysis of patients' awareness of appropriate treatment modalities. This study aimed to evaluate e-HL levels in men undergoing Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and its potential impact on their quality of life. A total of 106 patients scheduled for HoLEP were included. Age, body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, preoperative uroflowmetry values, e-HL scores, International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) levels, and internet usage data were recorded. The EuroQoL Quality of Life (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was administered at three months postoperatively. Follow-up uroflowmetry results, IPSS scores, and quality of life (QoL) assessments were compared with e-HL scores. A cutoff value for digital health literacy was identified. The mean age was 68 years, BMI 29.1 kg/m², prostate volume 86.6 cc, and PSA 7.5 ± 4.6 ng/ml. The mean e-HL score was 16.8 ± 9.8, which was negatively correlated with age and BMI, positively with ISCED level and internet use (p < 0.001). The cutoff for adequate e-HL was 18.5. No significant correlation was found between e-HL and postoperative IPSS, EQ-5D-5L scores. e-HL levels in HoLEP patients were not associated with symptom severity, postoperative outcomes, or quality of life. Further multicenter studies are needed.

Objective: Double J (DJ) stents are widely used in urology practice. Forgotten ureteral stents can cause serious complications. We present our experience about forgotten ureteral stents with 49 cases. Material and Methods: The data of patients who were operated due to forgotten encrusted ureteral stents were examined retrospectively. Age, gender, side, presenting complaint, indwelling time, stent indication, surgery performed, complications, additional interventions and stone-free status were evaluated. For descriptive statistics, the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum frequencies and percentages were used. Results: Nineteen (38.8%) patients were female and 30 (61.2%) patients were male. The mean age of the patients was 47,06±14,11 (18-79). The mean indwelling time was 16.2±21,1 (3-120). Stents were placed in 30 patients due to stone surgery, 9 patients due to prophylactic before oncologic surgery, 8 patients due to hydronephrosis and two patients due to ureteral injury. For the treatment of the forgotten stent, ureteroscopy (including flexible ureterorenoscopy) was performed in 26 patients, endoscopic combined treatment in 11 patients, cystolithotripsy in 9 patients, open surgery in two patients and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in one patient. Conclusion: Removal of forgotten impacted ureteral stents can cause serious complications. The patients who were placed stents should be informed about the complications associated with forgotten encrusted stents.