Urolitíase no alotransplante renal

Purpose: Urinary lithiasis is an uncommon complication in recipient of kidney allografts. The prevalence varies from 0.02 to 3.4%. The majority of calculi arises de novo in the recipient, however some of them are transferred with the transplanted kidney. The treatment relies on few reports published previously. The aim of the study is to determine the prevalence of lithiasis as well as the treatment in an university hospital. METHODS: We analyzed 953 recipients of renal transplant undertaken in Hospital das Clínicas - FMRP-USP, from February of 1968 to May of 2003. The mean age of patients bearing lithiasis was 47.2 years (range 35 to 63 years). RESULTS: The prevalence of lithiasis was 10/953 (1.0%). Nine patients received kidneys from cadaver donor and 1 from living donor. The diagnosis occurred during the surgery in 2 (20%), within few days after transplantation in 1 (10%) and in the late postoperative period in 7 (70%). Seven patients had no complains, 2 had associated urinary tract infection and 1 a rise in serum creatinine. Of 8 cases with lithiasis in the postoperative period, the stones were localized in the kidney in 6 and in the ureter in 2. Renal calculi were managed as follows: watchful-waiting - 2, extracorporeal lithotrypsy - 2, percutaneous nepholithotrypsy - 1 and open pyelolithomy - 1. One patient with ureteric lithiasis associated ureteral stenosis underwent a pyelo-vesicostomy. The other patient with ureteric lithiasis was treated by retrograde endoscopic ureterolithothrypsy. CONCLUSION: Urinary lithiasis is rare in transplanted kidneys and can be managed as to the general population.

OBJETIVO: A litíase urinária é uma complicação incomum no alotransplante renal, a incidência varia de 0,02 a 3,4%. A maioria dos cálculos forma-se após o transplante, porém alguns podem ser transferidos junto com o enxerto para o hospedeiro. O tratamento desta complicação está baseado em alguns casos descritos na literatura. O objetivo deste trabalho é o de relatar a incidência da litíase renal no paciente com transplante renal, assim como a conduta adotada no HCFMRPUSP. MÉTODOS: Foram analisados 953 pacientes submetidos a transplante renal no HCFMRPUSP, de fevereiro 1968 a maio de 2003. A idade média foi de 47,2 anos (35 a 63 anos). Em 09 pacientes, o rim foi proveniente de doador cadáver e apenas 01 doador vivo. RESULTADOS:Foram diagnosticados 10 casos de litíase (1,05%). Em 02 pacientes (20%) o cálculo foi diagnosticado no intraoperatório, em 01 (10%) no peri-operatório (5º. dia), os 07 restantes (70%) no pós-operatório tardio. Em 04 pacientes (57%) não havia sintomatologia específica, 02 (29%) apresentaram ITU, em 03 (43%) ocorreu elevação da creatinina sérica. De 8 pacientes com litíase no pós-operatorio, em 06 os cálculos estavam localizados no rim e 02 no ureter. Dos pacientes com cálculos renais, 02 foram observados, 02 submetidos a LECO, 01 a nefrolitripsia percutânea, 01 à pielolitotomia. Em 01 paciente com cálculo ureteral foi realizada pielovesicostomia (cálculo + estenose), no outro paciente foi feita a ureterorrenoscopia retrógrada. CONCLUSÃO: A urolitíase é complicação rara no transplante renal, a conduta terapêutica no pós-operatório tardio é semelhante à da população geral.

Incontinência urinária no idoso

The prevalence of urinary incontinence in the elderly varies from 8 to 34% according to the criteria or method of investigation. The etiology or main associated factors are: aging tissular degeneration that compromise the lower urinary tract and pelvic floor, changes of peripheric and central nervous system, hormonal alterations such as menopause, nocturnal polyuria, benign prostate hyperplasia, concomitant diseases and side effects of medical drugs. The incontinence may be transitory or permanent. Besides a criterious medical history for a better characterization of the urinary loss, a search for associated or concomitant causes and the miccional diary, one oftenly may rely on specialized exams such as urodynamics. A specific diagnosis is of utmost value for correct management that may require only conservative measures based on changes of behaviour or counceiling, drugs prescription, or invasive methods including surgical procedures.

A prevalência da incontinência urinária no idoso varia de 8 a 34% segundo o critério ou método de avaliação. A principais causas são: alterações teciduais da senilidade que comprometem o trato urinário inferior e o assoalho pélvico, do sistema nervoso central e periférico, alterações hormonais como a menopausa, poliúria noturna, alterações psicológicas, hiperplasia prostática benigna, doenças concomitantes e efeitos colaterais de medicamentos. A incontinência pode ser transitória ou permanente. Além da anamnese cuidadosa para caracterização das perdas urinárias, a busca de causas associadas ou concomitantes e o diário miccional, recorre-se com freqüência a exames especializados como a urodinâmica. O diagnóstico preciso é importante para o manejo adequado que pode requerer apenas medidas conservadoras baseadas em orientações e mudanças de hábitos, como o uso de medicamentos, ou então métodos invasivos que incluem procedimentos cirúrgicos específicos.

Performance of PSA and of PSA density in the diagnosis of prostate carcinoma

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of the prostate volume and PSA density on the performance of total PSA to diagnosis of prostate carcinoma. METHODS: We analyzed 217 patients (PSA 0-10ng/ml) submitted to transrectal sextant prostate biopsy. Criteria for biopsy indication was PSA >2ng/ml and/or digital rectal exam suspicious of prostate cancer. RESULTS: Fifty five patients had prostate neoplasia (25.3%) and in 8/55 (25.3%) the serum PSA was under 4ng/ml. The sensitivity and specificity of the test were respectively 98.2% / 16.6% at a cut-off point of 2.5ng/ml and 85.4% / 38.8% at cut-off of 4ng/ml. The corresponding values for prostates >40ml or 40ml were: 96.2% / 8.1% and 100% / 27.2% at the cut-off point of 2.5ng/ml, and 92.5% / 20% and 78.5% / 62.3% at a cut-off level of 4ng/ml. For prostates 40ml a PSA cut-off point of 4ng/ml leads to a misdiagnosis in 21.4% of the malignant tumors. The median PSAD of benign prostates are different according to prostate volume (.40ml or 40ml). PSAD at cut-off of 0.08 increases the PSA specificity at both PSA cut-off points. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate volume affects the sensitivity and specificity of PSA and the median values of PSAD. PSAD of 0.08 increases the PSA specificity specially at a cut-off point of 2.5ng/ml in prostates smaller than 40ml.