The final version may contain major or minor changes.Subscription: Information about subscribing to Minerva Medica journals is online at: http://www.minervamedica.it/en/how-to-order-journals.php Reprints and permissions: For information about reprints and permissions send an email to:

Context: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused increased interest in the application of telehealth to provide care without exposing patients and physicians to the risk of contagion. The urological literature on the topic is sparse. Objective: To perform a systematic review of the literature and evaluate all the available studies on urological applications of telehealth. Evidence acquisition: After registration on PROSPERO, we searched PubMed and Scopus databases to collect any kind of studies evaluating any telehealth interventions in any urological conditions. The National Toxicology Program/Office of Health Assessment and Translation Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies was used to estimate the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was performed. Evidence synthesis: We identified 45 studies (11 concerning prostate cancer [PCa], three hematuria management, six urinary stones, 14 urinary incontinence [UI], five urinary tract infections [UTIs], and six other conditions), including 12 randomized controlled trials. The available literature indicates that telemedicine has been implemented successfully in several common clinical scenarios, including the decision-making process following a diagnosis of nonmetastatic PCa, follow-up care of patients with localized PCa after curative treatments, initial diagnosis of hematuria, management diagnosis and follow-up care of uncomplicated urinary stones and uncomplicated UTIs, and initial evaluation, behavioral therapies, and pelvic floor muscle training in UI patients, as well

The recently released seventh edition of the primary tumor staging system for kidney tumors is a powerful predictor of CSS. However, some of the substages identified by the classification have overlapping prognoses, and other substages include patients with heterogeneous outcomes. The few modifications included in this edition may have not resolved the most critical issues in the previous version.

Harvesting the LMG is feasible and easy to perform. Compared with the buccal mucosal graft the LMG seems to be associated with less postoperative pain and a minor risk of donor site complications. These preliminary functional and esthetic data are satisfactory.