European urology focus最新文献

{"title":"The 24-mo Outcomes from the Noninferiority Randomised Controlled Trial of Surgery for Men with Urodynamic Stress Incontinence After Prostate Surgery (MASTER)","authors":"Lynda Constable, Marcus J. Drake, David Cooper, Graeme MacLennan, Chris Harding, Anthony Mundy, Kirsty McCormack, John Norrie, Craig Ramsay, Rebecca Smith, Nikki Cotterill, Mary Kilonzo, Paul Abrams","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2026.07.012","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euf.2026.07.012","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the most common surgical procedure for persistent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after prostate surgery, whereas the male sling is a newer alternative.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare the 24-mo outcomes of the sling versus the AUS.</div></div><div><h3>Design, settings, and participants</h3><div>This was an unblinded, noninferiority randomised controlled trial including men from 27 UK urological centres with bothersome urodynamic SUI after prostate surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Intervention</h3><div>Men were randomised to receive a transobturator sling (<em>n</em> = 190) or an AUS (<em>n</em> = 190). Randomisation was minimised by type of surgery (radical prostatectomy/transurethral resection of the prostate), previous radiotherapy for prostate cancer (yes/no), and centre.</div></div><div><h3>Outcome measurements and statistical analysis</h3><div>The primary outcome was self-reported continence (a composite outcome derived from two items in the validated International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire–Urinary Incontinence Short Form [ICIQ-UI SF]) at 12 mo after randomisation, with a noninferiority margin of 15%, via postal questionnaire. The secondary outcomes were self-reported continence, further treatments, patient-reported measures and serious adverse events up to 24 mo.</div></div><div><h3>Results and limitations</h3><div>A total of 380 participants were included. In terms of continence, the sling was noninferior to the AUS at 24 mo (estimated absolute risk difference in the intention-to-treat analysis, −0.006; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.092 to 0.080; noninferiority <em>p</em> = 0.001), indicating lower success in the sling group, but with a CI excluding the noninferiority margin. Incontinence symptom scores (ICIQ-UI SF) decreased from 16.1 and 16.4 at baseline to 7.9 and 7.1 in the sling and AUS groups, respectively. The mean difference was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.2–2.6; <em>p</em> = 0.024). Secondary outcomes favoured the AUS over the sling. By 24 mo, more men underwent further surgery after receiving a sling (<em>n</em> = 20, 11%) than after receiving an AUS (<em>n</em> = 4, 2%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The 24-mo results confirm that the sling is noninferior to the AUS. Symptoms and quality of life significantly improved in both groups. Overall, secondary and post hoc analyses favour the AUS.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>Continence levels and symptoms improve with both surgeries. Most men are satisfied with their surgery, despite not being completely dry. Almost all other results show that men who have an artificial urinary sphincter have better outcomes than those who have a sling.</div><div>Trial registration</div><div>International Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ISRCTN49212975. This trial was registered on July 22, 2013, and participants were randomised between January 29, 2014, and December 28, 2017.<","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":"12 4","pages":"Pages 636-643"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148826543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluating Caffeine Intake and Reduction in Patients with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS)","authors":"Ijeoma Okonji,&nbsp;Mary Garthwaite,&nbsp;Marcus Drake","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2026.07.014","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euf.2026.07.014","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Caffeine is consistently identified in international guidelines as a bladder irritant and modifiable risk factor in lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Despite consensus recommendations to reduce intake, no standardised clinical framework exists for its systematic evaluation. Intake is rarely quantified in milligrams, non-beverage sources are inconsistently assessed, and pharmacokinetic modifiers that substantially alter caffeine exposure remain largely absent from current clinical assessment.</div><div>We propose a structured five-step framework for caffeine evaluation in LUTS: symptom classification, bladder diary review, quantification of total intake across all sources, pharmacokinetic risk stratification, and individualised target-setting with scheduled review. Particular attention is given to cytochrome P450 1A2-mediated modifiers of clearance, including concomitant medication use, smoking status, and hepatic function, each of which can substantially alter systemic caffeine exposure independently of dietary intake. Integrating pharmacokinetic profiling into routine LUTS assessment supports more precise, individualised caffeine management.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>Caffeine can irritate the bladder and make urinary problems worse, such as a sudden urge to go, going often, or waking at night to pass urine. There are more obscure sources of caffeine, such as medicines and supplements, that can easily be missed when trying to estimate your caffeine intake. How much it affects you depends not only on your intake but also on factors that slow down how quickly your body clears caffeine. This includes certain medications, having recently stopped smoking, or liver problems. Working out your total caffeine intake and reducing it gradually can help ease these symptoms.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":"12 4","pages":"Pages 651-655"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148976147","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Re: Alec Zhu, Mary O. Strasser, Timothy D. McClure, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Partial Gland Cryoablation Versus Robotic Radical Prostatectomy for Cancer Control. Eur Urol Focus 2024;10:843–50","authors":"Francesco Montorsi,&nbsp;Armando Stabile,&nbsp;Giorgio Gandaglia,&nbsp;Alberto Briganti","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.06.022","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.06.022","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":"12 4","pages":"Page 821"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144845061","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The STent Or NEphrostomy Study: A Randomised Controlled Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrostomy Versus Internal Stent in Patient with Urolithiasis and an Indication for Decompression","authors":"Nora Hendriks,&nbsp;Hugo W. Schuil,&nbsp;Ruben G. Duijnhoven,&nbsp;Bart C.H. Oskam,&nbsp;Tom J.H. Arends,&nbsp;Diederick Duijvesz,&nbsp;Alexander D. Horsch,&nbsp;Bart van der Heij,&nbsp;Irene Tjiam,&nbsp;Hans van Overhage,&nbsp;Armand B.G.N. Lamers,&nbsp;Otto M. van Delden,&nbsp;Wout Scheepens,&nbsp;Jamie M.A. Drossaerts,&nbsp;Frank C.H. d’Ancona,&nbsp;Steven Boering,&nbsp;Janneke I.M. van Uhm,&nbsp;Rutger W. van der Meer,&nbsp;Herman J.H. van Roijen,&nbsp;Martin de Kiefte,&nbsp;Barbara M.A. Schout","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.10.012","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.10.012","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>Obstruction by urolithiasis may be the reason for a percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) or the placement of an internal stent. High-quality evidence is scarce. The objective of this study is to investigate whether a PCN is noninferior to an internal stent with regard to effectiveness (time to clinical recovery).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this nationwide randomised controlled noninferiority trial performed in 11 secondary and tertiary care hospitals in the Netherlands, we randomised 204 patients for either a PCN or an internal stent. The primary outcome was the time to recovery.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>Baseline characteristics were comparable. Fourteen participants crossed over from the PCN group to the internal stent group, of whom most (<em>n</em> = 11) crossed over due to technical failure, as opposed to four crossovers from the internal stent group to the PCN group. The mean time to recovery was 1.7 d (standard deviation [SD] 1.7) in the PCN arm and 1.5 d (SD 1.5) in the internal stent group. The mean difference was 0.3 (95% confidence interval –0.2 to 0.7) and did not exceed the noninferiority margin of 1 d (noninferiority <em>p</em> &lt; 0.01). No statistically significant difference was observed in the percentage of participants with adverse events, nor were we able to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the number of events of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3a. The current study revealed a notably high rate of crossovers due to technical failure.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical implications</h3><div>The STent Or NEphrostomy study proved a PCN to be noninferior to an internal stent in terms of the time to clinical recovery. Either option for drainage is an effective method of treatment, as long as patient-specific risk factors for technical failure of the procedure are considered.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":"12 4","pages":"Pages 700-708"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145741204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Avoiding a Voiding Void","authors":"Marcus J. Drake,&nbsp;Kari A.O. Tikkinen","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2026.07.007","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euf.2026.07.007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":"12 4","pages":"Pages 625-627"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148891360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Influence of Urinary Diversion Type on Body Image and Decision Regret Following Radical Cystectomy: A Systematic Review","authors":"Navid Roessler,&nbsp;Marcin Miszczyk,&nbsp;Keiichiro Miyajima,&nbsp;Ahmed R. Alfarhan,&nbsp;Abdulrahman S. Alqahtani,&nbsp;Shota Inoue,&nbsp;Heidemarie Ofner,&nbsp;Julia Weiss,&nbsp;Tamás Fazekas,&nbsp;Tim A. Ludwig,&nbsp;Malte W. Vetterlein,&nbsp;Mieke Van Hemelrijck,&nbsp;Berna C. Özdemir,&nbsp;Margit Fisch,&nbsp;Shahrokh F. Shariat","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.12.002","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.12.002","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Objective</h3><div>The choice between different urinary diversion types carries distinct implications for physical appearance and psychosocial outcomes. This systematic review aims to synthesize current evidence on how different urinary diversion types influence patients’ body image and decision regret.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this prospectively registered systematic review (CRD420251079300), we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science in June 2025 for studies reporting body image and decision regret outcomes in patients undergoing urinary diversion after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Data were synthesized descriptively, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>Of 1837 records screened, 31 studies comprising 5180 patients were included: 24 assessed body image (<em>n</em> = 4552), six decision regret (<em>n</em> = 579), and one both (<em>n</em> = 49). Diversion types comprised orthotopic neobladder (<em>n</em> = 1848), ileal conduit (<em>n</em> = 2970), continent cutaneous diversion (<em>n</em> = 61), cutaneous ureterostomy (<em>n</em> = 206), and ureterosigmoidostomy (<em>n</em> = 95). Most studies evaluated body image using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire—Bladder Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-BLM30; 13 studies) or Body Image Scale (seven studies). Decision regret was measured via the Decision Regret Scale (two studies) or custom questionnaires (five studies). Among 17 comparative studies on body image and six on decision regret, most reported favorable body image and lower decision regret in patients with continent versus incontinent urinary diversions. Most studies exhibited moderate to serious risks of bias, primarily due to retrospective designs, missing response data, and incomplete reporting of diversion-specific questionnaire participation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical implications</h3><div>Urinary diversion choice after radical cystectomy affects body image and decision regret, with continent options generally linked to better psychosocial outcomes. Given the heterogeneity of current evidence, patient-centered counseling, expectation management, and social support are essential to improve long-term satisfaction and quality of life.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":"12 4","pages":"Pages 785-795"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145751895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Kidney-sparing Treatments for Local Recurrence in Renal Cell Tumours After Partial Nephrectomy or Focal Therapy: A Systematic Review","authors":"Francesco Di Bello,&nbsp;Andrea Gallioli,&nbsp;Alessandro Uleri,&nbsp;Gernot Ortner,&nbsp;Bhaskar Kumar Somani,&nbsp;Tiago Ribeiro de Oliveira,&nbsp;Eric Barret,&nbsp;Panagiotis Kallidonis,&nbsp;Giulio Avesani,&nbsp;Nicola Longo,&nbsp;Alberto Breda,&nbsp;Theodoros Tokas,&nbsp;EAU Section of Endourology Focal/Laparoscopy Working Group","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.12.003","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.12.003","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>Kidney-sparing treatments are salvage options for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after local recurrence. However, there is no level 1 evidence in the literature examining the efficacy of focal therapies (FTs) and partial nephrectomy (PN) in a head-to-head, randomised comparison.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic search (PROSPERO CRD420251033642) was performed. The present analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>Overall, 30 studies involving 873 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients with RCC were treated primarily with FTs (<em>n</em> = 376, 43%) and PN (<em>n</em> = 462, 53%). Of FTs, cryoablation was received by 198 (57%) RCC patients. The rates of recurrence for FTs ranged from 4% to 20%, while those for PN ranged from 3% to 19%. The intraoperative complication rates ranged from 2% to 6% for FTs and from 3% to 9% for PN. The postoperative complications rates ranged from 2% to 40% for FTs and from 8% to 40% for PN, while the major postoperative complications rates, defined as Clavien-Dindo ≥3, ranged from 2% to 9% for FTs and from 1% to 18% for PN. The rates of overall survival ranged from 82% to 100% for FTs, and from 96% to 100% for PNs. Limitations included the bias in patients’ selection and the absence of time-to-event data.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical implications</h3><div>PN achieved acceptable overall survival, recurrence, and complication profiles, demonstrating its feasibility in a salvage setting. Patient selection is mandatory to identify those best candidates for PN and FT, thereby prioritising oncological outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":"12 4","pages":"Pages 796-804"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145780691","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheaths for the Treatment of Urolithiasis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis","authors":"Michael Uy,&nbsp;Joseph Moryousef,&nbsp;Lei Wang,&nbsp;Yanbo Guo,&nbsp;Edward D. Matsumoto,&nbsp;Stephanie Daignault-Newton,&nbsp;Wilson Sui,&nbsp;William W. Roberts,&nbsp;Casey A. Dauw,&nbsp;Khurshid R. Ghani","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.08.008","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.08.008","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>Use of a flexible and navigable suction (FANS) ureteral access sheath (UAS) is increasing for evacuation of fragments during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for upper tract stones. We compared the use of FANS-UAS and a traditional UAS (T-UAS) in terms of the stone-free rate (SFR) and adverse events, and captured data on FANS-UAS specifications and intraoperative settings currently being used in practice.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative and noncomparative studies in the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases (January 1, 2000 to March 30, 2025) according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 guidelines (CRD42023466330). Preplanned subgroup analyses were performed for variations in the SFR definition and for studies that compared FANS-UAS to a T-UAS with suction.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>A total of 34 studies were included, with a total pooled population of 7193 patients (5552 FANS-UAS and 1641 T-UAS). In comparison to T-UAS use, FANS-UAS use was associated with higher SFRs (by any definition) and lower rates of infections and complications, without any significant difference in operative times. Sensitivity analyses revealed no difference in SFR when comparing FANS-UAS to a T-UAS with suction. Our findings are constrained by variability in study populations, outcome definitions, and intraoperative protocols, alongside poor reporting of device characteristics.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical implications</h3><div>In comparison to T-UAS use, FANS-UAS use during RIRS was associated with better stone clearance rates and lower complication rates. Further FANS-UAS optimization may involve changes in sheath sizes and suction parameters.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":"12 4","pages":"Pages 752-760"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145058489","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Control of Confounding and Claims of Causality in Observational Studies of Neuraxial Anesthesia and Recurrence in Urologic Cancer: A Systematic Review","authors":"Lucia Salerno,&nbsp;Riccardo Leni,&nbsp;Amy L. Tin,&nbsp;Joshua S. Mincer,&nbsp;Patrick J. McCormick,&nbsp;Andrew J. Vickers","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.11.003","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.11.003","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>Several observational studies have claimed that the use of neuraxial anesthesia reduces the risk of recurrence after urologic cancer surgery. However, its use is associated with age, comorbidity, and cancer stage, raising concerns of confounding. We aimed to assess the published literature to evaluate causal inference reporting.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We performed a systematic review of observational studies evaluating the association between anesthesia type and oncologic outcomes in urologic cancer surgery. We used a three-point scale to describe how causal inference was recorded on seven separate reporting criteria. To explore the issue of confounding directly, we evaluated the oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing radical cystectomy at a major cancer hospital according to the type of anesthesia received.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>We retrieved 18 studies on anesthesia and recurrence after urologic cancer surgery. Reference to causality was completely absent in more than half of the papers; all but one paper failed to assess the control of confounding in the Results section or addressed causal inference in the Discussion section. An analysis of the cohort at our own institution demonstrated large differences in age, comorbidity, and cancer stage, and inconsistent findings between overall, recurrence-free, and cancer-specific survival.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical implications</h3><div>Reporting of causal inference is poor for observational studies of neuraxial anesthesia in urologic cancer surgery. The current literature is beset by residual and unmeasured confounding, and randomized controlled trials appear to be the only solution to this research question. However, these are unlikely to be a research priority given the weak biologic rationale. Reporting of causal inference in the urologic literature needs dramatic improvement.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":"12 4","pages":"Pages 761-768"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145631662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Self-management of Male LUTS","authors":"Farnoosh Nik-Ahd,&nbsp;Mohammad Albarqouni,&nbsp;Scott R. Bauer,&nbsp;Loai Albarqouni","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2026.06.021","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.euf.2026.06.021","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":"12 4","pages":"Pages 644-646"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148403820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}