Urology is one of the most innovative surgical fields, but many dogmas continue to exist. Without appropriate challenge and discourse, these dogmas will perpetuate based on eminence rather than evidence. While the merits of certain approaches have become commonplace, such as ureteroscopy in lieu of open stone extraction, other debates rage on, including robotic versus open surgery. Indeed, the field of endourology was created from the desire to innovate and disseminate minimally invasive procedures with less morbidity but equal effectiveness. In line with the scope of Frontiers in Urology, which encourages novel research that challenges older existing principles, we have organized this Research Topic to provide researchers the opportunity to challenge these dogmas and engage in robust academic discourse.
The goal of this Research Topic is to provide a forum in which authors can present original endourological research that helps to push the whole urological field forward, or at least provide data that can be debated. Many practice patterns are resistant to change, since stalwarts in the field have championed a technique for decades. Certain methods withstand the test of time, while others are replaced. Ureteroscopy and laparoscopy (whether robotic-assisted or not) have become common and even preferred approaches. Other modalities, such as focal therapy for prostate cancer and endoluminal treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma, are much less frequently used, for now. The merits of these approaches, and the perioperative care surrounding them, need further evidence-dissemination until they can become new standards of care.
Authors are invited to submit manuscripts presenting original research, clinical trials, and/or study protocols that challenge a urologic dogma or routine practice and provide evidence for an endourological technique or method. Manuscript submissions are not limited to the technique itself but can include factors surrounding them, such as antibiotic prophylaxis or follow-up regimens. Manuscripts should clearly state the usual approach or central tenant that is being compared to an emerging technique. Results should demonstrate promise towards future practice changes but preliminary data is welcome as long as further research plans are clearly outlined and feasible.
Urology is one of the most innovative surgical fields, but many dogmas continue to exist. Without appropriate challenge and discourse, these dogmas will perpetuate based on eminence rather than evidence. While the merits of certain approaches have become commonplace, such as ureteroscopy in lieu of open stone extraction, other debates rage on, including robotic versus open surgery. Indeed, the field of endourology was created from the desire to innovate and disseminate minimally invasive procedures with less morbidity but equal effectiveness. In line with the scope of Frontiers in Urology, which encourages novel research that challenges older existing principles, we have organized this Research Topic to provide researchers the opportunity to challenge these dogmas and engage in robust academic discourse.
The goal of this Research Topic is to provide a forum in which authors can present original endourological research that helps to push the whole urological field forward, or at least provide data that can be debated. Many practice patterns are resistant to change, since stalwarts in the field have championed a technique for decades. Certain methods withstand the test of time, while others are replaced. Ureteroscopy and laparoscopy (whether robotic-assisted or not) have become common and even preferred approaches. Other modalities, such as focal therapy for prostate cancer and endoluminal treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma, are much less frequently used, for now. The merits of these approaches, and the perioperative care surrounding them, need further evidence-dissemination until they can become new standards of care.
Authors are invited to submit manuscripts presenting original research, clinical trials, and/or study protocols that challenge a urologic dogma or routine practice and provide evidence for an endourological technique or method. Manuscript submissions are not limited to the technique itself but can include factors surrounding them, such as antibiotic prophylaxis or follow-up regimens. Manuscripts should clearly state the usual approach or central tenant that is being compared to an emerging technique. Results should demonstrate promise towards future practice changes but preliminary data is welcome as long as further research plans are clearly outlined and feasible.
