Aged ; Epididymis ; pathology ; surgery ; Humans ; Inguinal Canal ; Male ; Mesothelioma ; diagnosis ; pathology ; surgery ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; diagnosis ; pathology ; surgery ; Orchiectomy ; Testicular Neoplasms ; diagnosis ; pathology ; surgery ; Testis ; pathology ; surgery ; Time Factors

The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia, SIUCP) on the diagnosis and management of hemorrhoidal disease, with the goal of guiding physicians in the choice of the best treatment option. A panel of experts was charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key questions on the main topics related to the management of hemorrhoidal disease and to perform an accurate and comprehensive literature search on each topic, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in multiple rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) criteria, and the statements were developed adopting the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology. In cases of grade 1 hemorrhoidal prolapse, outpatient procedures including hemorrhoidal laser procedure and sclerotherapy may be considered the preferred surgical options. For grade 2 prolapse, nonexcisional procedures including outpatient treatments, hemorrhoidal artery ligation and mucopexy, laser hemorrhoidoplasty, the Rafaelo procedure, and stapled hemorrhoidopexy may represent the first-line treatment options, whereas excisional surgery may be considered in selected cases. In cases of grades 3 and 4, stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidectomy may represent the most effective procedures, even if, in the expert panel opinion, stapled hemorrhoidopexy represents the gold-standard treatment for grade 3 hemorrhoidal prolapse.

The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia, SIUCP) on the diagnosis and management of hemorrhoidal disease, with the goal of guiding physicians in the choice of the best treatment option. A panel of experts was charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key questions on the main topics related to the management of hemorrhoidal disease and to perform an accurate and comprehensive literature search on each topic, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in multiple rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) criteria, and the statements were developed adopting the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology. In cases of grade 1 hemorrhoidal prolapse, outpatient procedures including hemorrhoidal laser procedure and sclerotherapy may be considered the preferred surgical options. For grade 2 prolapse, nonexcisional procedures including outpatient treatments, hemorrhoidal artery ligation and mucopexy, laser hemorrhoidoplasty, the Rafaelo procedure, and stapled hemorrhoidopexy may represent the first-line treatment options, whereas excisional surgery may be considered in selected cases. In cases of grades 3 and 4, stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidectomy may represent the most effective procedures, even if, in the expert panel opinion, stapled hemorrhoidopexy represents the gold-standard treatment for grade 3 hemorrhoidal prolapse.

The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia, SIUCP) on the diagnosis and management of hemorrhoidal disease, with the goal of guiding physicians in the choice of the best treatment option. A panel of experts was charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key questions on the main topics related to the management of hemorrhoidal disease and to perform an accurate and comprehensive literature search on each topic, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in multiple rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) criteria, and the statements were developed adopting the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology. In cases of grade 1 hemorrhoidal prolapse, outpatient procedures including hemorrhoidal laser procedure and sclerotherapy may be considered the preferred surgical options. For grade 2 prolapse, nonexcisional procedures including outpatient treatments, hemorrhoidal artery ligation and mucopexy, laser hemorrhoidoplasty, the Rafaelo procedure, and stapled hemorrhoidopexy may represent the first-line treatment options, whereas excisional surgery may be considered in selected cases. In cases of grades 3 and 4, stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidectomy may represent the most effective procedures, even if, in the expert panel opinion, stapled hemorrhoidopexy represents the gold-standard treatment for grade 3 hemorrhoidal prolapse.

The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia, SIUCP) on the diagnosis and management of hemorrhoidal disease, with the goal of guiding physicians in the choice of the best treatment option. A panel of experts was charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key questions on the main topics related to the management of hemorrhoidal disease and to perform an accurate and comprehensive literature search on each topic, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in multiple rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) criteria, and the statements were developed adopting the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology. In cases of grade 1 hemorrhoidal prolapse, outpatient procedures including hemorrhoidal laser procedure and sclerotherapy may be considered the preferred surgical options. For grade 2 prolapse, nonexcisional procedures including outpatient treatments, hemorrhoidal artery ligation and mucopexy, laser hemorrhoidoplasty, the Rafaelo procedure, and stapled hemorrhoidopexy may represent the first-line treatment options, whereas excisional surgery may be considered in selected cases. In cases of grades 3 and 4, stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidectomy may represent the most effective procedures, even if, in the expert panel opinion, stapled hemorrhoidopexy represents the gold-standard treatment for grade 3 hemorrhoidal prolapse.

Purpose: Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and Methods: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/ uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available. Conclusions This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.