ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Purpose: Retained or forgotten ureteral stents (FUS) have a potential to cause significant morbidity as well as medico-legal issues and increased cost. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and usefulness of smartphone-based Ureteral Stent Tracker (UST) application and compare the results with basic appointment card system to prevent FUS, prospectively. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 patients who underwent ureteroscopic stone treatment procedure with indwelling DJ stents were equally distributed into two groups. In group-1, patients were followed using UST application. In group-2, only appointment cards were given to the patients. Two groups were compared in terms of stent overdue times and complete lost to follow up rates. Results: Forty-four patients in group-1 and 43 patients in group-2 completed the study. Among patients, 22.7% in group-1 and 27.9% in group-2 did not return for the stent removal on the scheduled day. In group-1, these patients were identified using the UST and called for the stent removal on the same day. After 6 weeks of maximal waiting period, mean overdue times in group-1 and group-2 were 3.5 days and 20 days, respectively (p = 0.001). In group-2, 3 patients (6.9%) were lost to follow up, while in group-1, it was none (p = 0.001). Conclusions: We found that the patients who were followed by the smartphone-based UST application has less overdue times and lost to follow up cases compared to the basic appointment card system. The UST application easily follows patients with indwelling ureteral stents and can identify patients when overdue.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Stents/adverse effects , Stents/standards , Ureteroscopy/methods , Smartphone , Foreign Bodies/prevention & control , Ureteral Calculi/surgery , Ureteral Calculi/etiology , Prospective Studies , Device Removal/methods , Foreign Bodies/surgery , Foreign Bodies/complications , Middle AgedABSTRACT
Tumor diameter is a reliable parameter to estimate tumor volume in solid organ cancers; its use in prostate cancer is controversial since it exhibits a more irregular pattern of growth. This study aimed to examine the association between the tumor volume estimations based on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy results and the tumor volume measured on the pathological specimen.
A total of 237 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) were included in this retrospective study. The differences and correlations between cancer volume estimations based on TRUS guided biopsy findings and cancer volume estimations based on post-prostatectomy pathology specimens were examined. In addition, diagnostic value of TRUS guided biopsy-based volume estimations in order to predict clinically significant cancer (>0.5 cc) were calculated.
The mean cancer volume estimated using TRUS biopsy results was lower (5.5±6.5 cc) than the mean cancer volume calculated using prostatectomy specimens (6.4±7.6 cc) (p<0.041). TRUS guided biopsy examination resulted in 5 false positive and 15 false negative cases. There was a significant but weak correlation between the two parameters (r=0.62, p<0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of TRUS guided biopsy in predicting the presence of clinically significant cancer was 93.4% (95% CI, 89.1-96.1) and 50.0% (95% CI, 20.1-79.9), respectively.
TRUS guided biopsy-derived estimations seem to have a limited value to predict pathologically established tumor volume. Further studies are warranted to identify additional methods that may more accurately predict actual pathological characteristics and prognosis of prostate cancer.