Young Joon Moon

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of D-mannose for preventing recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs), including in kidney transplant recipients, and to clarify discrepancies between early openlabel and placebo-controlled trials.Materials and Methods: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Web of Science were searched from inception to February 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing D-mannose with placebo, no treatment, antibiotics, or active controls were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using RoB 2, and certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations).Results: Eleven RCT reports involving 1,724 participants were included; 10 independent study populations involving 1,631 participants contributed to quantitative analyses. In placebo-controlled trials, D-mannose did not significantly reduce UTI recurrence or persistence versus placebo (risk ratio [RR], 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06–2.36). No-treatment comparisons showed reduced recurrence (RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08–0.66), but were more vulnerable to expectation, performance, and detection biases. The exploratory combined estimate favored D-mannose (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12–0.66), but certainty was very low. Antibiotic comparisons were inconclusive (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.18–1.05), whereas proanthocyanidins active-control comparisons favored D-mannose-containing regimens (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.40–0.82), including data from kidney transplant recipients.Conclusions: Current placebo-controlled evidence does not establish superiority of D-mannose over placebo. Apparent benefits were mainly driven by no-treatment comparisons with very low certainty. D-mannose remains biologically plausible but clinically uncertain; adequately powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are needed before firm recommendations can be made.

Background and Objectives: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of the Thulium fiber laser (TFL) and Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Ho:YAG) laser for ureteroscopic lithotripsy, considering the distinct technical characteristics of these two systems. Materials and Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration (CRD42023461573), a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted through August 2025. We included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies comparing TFL and Ho:YAG laser in patients undergoing ureteroscopic management for urolithiasis. The primary outcomes were the stone-free rate (SFR) and complication rates (intraoperative and postoperative). Results: Thirteen studies involving 2217 patients were included. Overall, the TFL group demonstrated a significantly higher SFR compared to the Ho:YAG group (OR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.20–2.06, p = 0.001). In subgroup analysis, TFL showed superior SFR compared to Ho:YAG without pulse modulation (OR = 1.69, p = 0.01) and comparable efficacy to Ho:YAG with pulse modulation (OR = 1.52, p = 0.24). Regarding safety, no significant difference was observed in the intraoperative complication rate (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.35–1.70, p = 0.52) or the postoperative complication rate (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.65–1.60, p = 0.93) between the two groups. Conclusions: TFL provides a superior SFR compared to the Ho:YAG laser overall, a benefit primarily driven by its significant outperformance of standard Ho:YAG systems without pulse modulation. Importantly, TFL demonstrates comparable efficacy to modern Ho:YAG systems equipped with pulse modulation. The safety profile of TFL, including intraoperative and postoperative complications, is comparable to that of the Ho:YAG laser. Our findings suggest that TFL is a highly effective and safe modality for ureteroscopic lithotripsy, offering distinct advantages over standard Ho:YAG lasers while performing comparably to the latest pulse-modulated systems.

Jeong JY, et al. Investig Clin Urol. 2026 ;67:e53. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20260113

Moon YJ, et al. Yonsei Med J. 2026 Oct;67(10):736-743. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2026.0052

Moon YJ, et al. World J Mens Health. 2026 ;44:e61. https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.260149

Kang DH, et al. Investig Clin Urol. 2026 May;67(3):213-226. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20260089

Background and Objectives: Ureteral stents are widely used in the field of urology but can cause varying degrees of side effects. This study utilized a network meta-analysis to evaluate stent-related discomfort (SRD) in patients with alpha-blockers (alfuzosin, tamsulosin, and silodosin), antimuscarinics (solifenacin), beta 3-agonists (mirabegron), and phosphodiesterase 5-inhibitors (tadalafil) versus a placebo. Materials and Methods: Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 2006 to 2021 were identified from electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The following identifiers were included to assess the urinary symptom score (USS): participants (patients with ureteral stents), interventions (patients who took medication for stent discomfort), and outcomes (comparisons of the Ureteric Stent Symptoms Questionnaire (USSQ)). We also executed an independent quality assessment using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Results: A total of 16 RCTs were identified, and they included 1865 patients. Compared with the placebo, mirabegron (mean difference (MD): −3.87; 95% confidence interval (CI): −10.6–2.35), tadalafil (MD: −4.47; 95% CI: −10.8–1.63), and silodosin (MD: −4.02; 95% CI: −12–4.01) did not show significant differences to the placebo, whereas others did. Alfuzosin, mirabegron, silodosin, solifenacin, and tadalafil were not inferior to tamsulosin in terms of the USS using Bayesian analyses. In the random effect model, P-score tests showed that solifenacin possessed the highest P-score (p = 0.8484); tamsulosin was the second highest (p = 0.7054). As a result of the rank-probability test, solifenacin was also ranked highest in terms of USS, and tamsulosin was ranked second. Conclusions: Compared with the placebo, solifenacin, tamsulosin, and alfuzosin significantly decreased the USS. In our study, solifenacin may be considered the most effective medication for SRD.

Background and Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in patients with prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library for papers published before May 2021. Only studies of patients with prostate cancer that assessed perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes and reported outcome values were included. We used a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model to synthesize data from multiple studies, enabling both direct and indirect comparisons of the three surgical approaches (RARP, LRP, ORP) to provide robust estimates of their relative efficacy. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021282555). Results: A total of 80 studies were finally included in the present study. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were lower for RARP than for ORP (RR 0.713, 95% CrI 0.587–0.869) and LRP (RR 0.672, 95% CrI 0.505–0.895). Compared with ORP, RARP had a significantly lower positive surgical margin (RR 0.893, 95% CrI 0.807–0.985). When compared to ORP, RARP and LRP showed no significant difference in continence (RR 1.057, 95% CrI 0.997–1.124; RR 0.921, 95% CrI 0.845–1.007). When compared to ORP, RARP was significantly more effective on potency (RR 1.201, 95% CrI 1.047–1.402). The potency rate was significantly higher for RARP than for ORP (RR 1.201, 95% CrI 1.047–1.402) and LRP (RR 1.438, 95% CrI 1.191–1.762). There was no difference in the estimated blood loss or the total and major complication rates between RARP, ORP, and LRP. The operation time was longest for LRP. There was no difference in the operation time between RARP and ORP. Conclusions: RARP may be better or comparable to ORP and LRP in terms of oncologic outcomes (PSM and BCR), functional outcomes (potency and incontinence), and perioperative outcomes (EBL, operation time, and total and major complications).

Jeong JY, et al. Investig Clin Urol. 2024 Jan;65(1):62-68. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20230298

Background and Objectives: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is still the gold-standard treatment for large and/or complex renal stones. Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) was developed with the goal of minimizing the number of access tracts of PCNL while simultaneously improving the one-step stone-free rate (SFR). The aim of this study was to share the experience of the consecutive 200 cases of ECIRS in one institute and analyze surgical outcomes of mini-ECIRS and standard ECIRS. Materials and Methods: We performed ECIRS for 200 adult patients between July 2017 and January 2020. An ECIRS was performed with the patient under general anesthesia in the intermediate-supine position. Surgeries were finished using a tubeless technique with a simple ureteral stent insertion. Results: There were significant differences in the mean maximal stone length (MSL), the variation coefficient of stone density (VCSD), the linear calculus density (LCD), the Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity (S-ReSC), and the modified S-ReSC scores in stone characteristics, and estimated blood loss (EBL) and operation time in peri-operative outcomes between conventional and mini-ECIRS. After propensity-score matching, there was only a difference in EBL between the two groups. In logistic regression models, MSL [odds ratio (OR) 0.953; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.926–0.979; p < 0.001], LCD (OR 4.702; 95% CI 1.613–18.655; p = 0.013) were significant factors for the success rate after ECIRS. Conclusions: In patients who underwent a mini-ECIRS, the stones were relatively smaller and less complex, and the operation time was shorter. However, if the size of stones was similar, there was no difference in the success rate, but EBL was lower in mini-ECIRS than in standard surgery.