Context Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men; robotic prostatectomy has cemented itself as part of the standard of care. Since its approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018, the SP console's application has been increasingly studied and compared with the multiport (MP) robotic approach. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration CRD42021228744, a systematic review was performed in April 2021 on single‐port robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomies (SP‐RARPs) compared to MP. Outcomes of interest were operative time, bleeding, complications, analgesic use, and postoperative continence, and erectile function. Data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3. Results Seven studies were included, of which six studies met the inclusion criteria for quantitative synthesis, totalling 1068 patients, out of which 324 underwent SP‐RARP and 744 underwent MP‐RARP. No differences were found in baseline characteristics such as age, body mass index, prostatic‐specific antigen, or stage. No differences in blood loss—15.77 mL [−42.44, 10.89], p = 0.25, operative time 3.93 min [−4.12, 11.98], p = 0.34, or positive surgical margins, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.78 [0.55, 1.10], p = 0.15—were found. Length of stay was significantly shorter in SP −0.94 days [−1.56, −0.33], p = 0.003, with no differences in complication rates, with an OR of 1.29 [0.78, 2.14], p = 0.32, continence rates, with an OR of 1.29 [0.90, 1.83], p = 0.16, erectile function, with an OR of 0.86 [0.52, 1.40], p = 0.54, or biochemical recurrence. Qualitative evidence suggests decreased opioid consumption. Conclusion SP‐RARPs are feasible alternatives to the traditional MP with possible benefits in pain management and length of stay. Future high‐quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

On March 11, 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic and has created an impact like no other on health systems worldwide. A restructuring in the priority of patient care has currently taken place that is based on the patient’s underlying pathology.  Urology services are no exception, postponing all the elective surgeries that can be delayed without putting the patient at risk. A surgical protocol has been adopted during the pandemic that attempts to reduce the amount of time the operating room is in use, as well as the risk for postoperative complications, so that hospital stay can be reduced.   In such a setting, minimally invasive surgery, such as laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery, can play a beneficial role in treating oncologic pathologies that cannot be deferred. Based on the best evidence that has currently been published and the guidelines of international associations, this paper summarizes the recommendations regarding urologic laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery in times of COVID-19.

No abstract

Introduction: Emergent urinary decompression through percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) or ureteric stent (URS) remains a mainstay in the management of urethral calculi-related obstruction with associated signs of infection or renal injury. Available evidence has shown similar performance, and current guidelines endorse both treatment strategies. Methods: A systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria up until August 2020. Studies included data on stone size and location, operative time, complications, length of stay, analgesic consumption, quality of life (QoL), and clinical outcomes between URS and PCN. Results: Ten studies with a total population of 772, of which 420 were treated with URS and 352 with PCN, were included. No statistical difference in operative time between both techniques was found. Nevertheless, length of stay in PCN was longer than in USR, with a mean difference of −1.87 days ((95% CI −2.69 to −1.06), Z=4.50, p=0.00001). No differences were found in the time to normalization of temperature or white blood cell counts. There were no significant differences in success rates, with an overall odds ratio (OR) of 0.60 ((95% CI 0.26 to −1.40), Z=1.17, p=0.24), or spontaneous passage after emergent drainage between groups. Complication rates ranged from 5% to 25% in URS and from 0% to 38% in PCN. In the studied population, out of the 157 patients from four studies describing complications, only 5% of URS procedures presented complications compared to 2% in PCN, showing a relatively low complication rate for either group (OR=2.07 (95% CI 0.89–4.84), Z=1.68, p=0.09). Differences in QoL were not significant. Conclusion: Both methods are equally effective, with no clear advantage for PCN over URS. Level of evidence: IV

On March 11, 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic and has created an impact like no other on health systems worldwide. A restructuring in the priority of patient care has currently taken place that is based on the patient’s underlying pathology.  Urology services are no exception, postponing all the elective surgeries that can be delayed without putting the patient at risk. A surgical protocol has been adopted during the pandemic that attempts to reduce the amount of time the operating room is in use, as well as the risk for postoperative complications, so that hospital stay can be reduced.   In such a setting, minimally invasive surgery, such as laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery, can play a beneficial role in treating oncologic pathologies that cannot be deferred. Based on the best evidence that has currently been published and the guidelines of international associations, this paper summarizes the recommendations regarding urologic laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery in times of COVID-19.