Background The use of ureteral access sheath (UAS) during ureteroscopy is controversial. We aimed to explore practice patterns of UAS during ureteroscopy for nephrolithiasis among endourologists worldwide. Methods A 15-question survey was designed using the SurveyMonkey® platform. The questions covered the background and professional experience of the potential respondents, indications for UAS insertion, UAS caliber and possible complications associated with its use. The questions were anonymously tabulated in order to determine practice patterns of UAS during ureteroscopy for nephrolithiasis among endourologists. The survey was then distributed via e-mail to all the Endourological Society members. Results 216 members responded. 99.53% of the respondents practice as endourologists, 63.4% are fellowship trained and 74.4% are at least 6 years post-fellow. 73.2% practice in an academic facility. 77.3% perform at least 100 ureteroscopies annually. 46 and 76% routinely use UAS for the treatment of ureteral and kidney stones, respectively. In both cases, the 12/14 access sheath is the most common. 42% use UAS in primary ureteroscopy. 90.3% believe that a double J stent insertion is not mandatory prior to UAS insertion. 79.1% think the use of UAS does not increase postoperative complications rate, and if the latter does encounter, then most likely it is either a ureteral stricture (93.2%) or pain (48%). Conclusions UAS is commonly used by highly skilled endourologists during ureteroscopy. 12/14 UAS is mostly used. Ureteral stricture and post-operative pain are proposed as possible complications following UAS introduction, however pre-stenting is not mandatory as overall low complication rate is expected.

Approximately 5%-10% of men evaluated for infertility are azoospermic (Practice Committee of the ASRM, 2018). Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in combination with testicular sperm extraction (TESE) is an effective treatment for patient with nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA). TESE may be performed during an ICSI cycle, coinciding with oocyte pickup (OPU) using fresh spermatozoa, or alternatively, may be performed electively and cryopreserved for use in future ICSI cycles. Both strategies have theoretical advantages and disadvantages, and however, when comparing ICSI outcome using fresh versus frozen spermatozoa in NOA men, no difference between frozen and fresh spermatozoa was identified (Ohlander et al., 2014; Yu et al., 2018). In fresh TESE cases, where extra-spermatozoon is available, sperm cryopreservation may avoid repeated testicular biopsies. Yu et al. (2018) explored the effect of testicular sperm cryopreservation on intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcome. Their

Purpose: to evaluate a unique subpopulation of radical prostatectomy (RP) candidates with “negative” prostate 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) computed tomography (CT) imaging scans and to characterize the clinical implications of misleading findings. Materials and Methods: This case-control retrospective study compared the final histological outcomes of patients with “negative” pre-RP PSMA PET/CT prostate scans (with a prostate maximal standardized uptake value [SUVmax] below the physiologic uptake) to those with an “intense” prostatic tracer uptake (with a SUVmax above the physiologic uptake). The patients underwent an RP between March 2015 and July 2019 in five academic centers. Data on the demographics, comorbidities, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and rectal exam findings, prior biopsies, imaging results, biopsies, and RP histology results were collected. Results: Ninety-seven of the 392 patients who underwent an RP had PSMA PET/CT imaging preoperatively. Fifty-two (54%) had a “negative” uptake (in the study group), and 45 (46%) had a “positive” uptake (in the control group). Only the lesion size and SUVmax values on the PSMA PET/CT differed between the groups preoperatively. On the histological analysis, only the ISUP score, seminal vesicles invasion, T stage, and positive margin rates differed between the groups (p < 0.05), while 50 (96%) study group patients harbored clinically significant disease (ISUP ≥ 2), with an extra-prostatic disease in 24 (46%), perineural invasion in 35 (67%), and positive lymph nodes in 4 (8%). Conclusions: Disease aggressiveness generally correlated with an intense PSMA uptake on the preoperative PSMA PET/CT, but a subpopulation of patients with clinically significant cancer and aggressive characteristics showed a deceptively weak PSMA uptake. These data raise a concern about the unqualified application of PSMA PET/CT for staging RP candidates.