A prospective randomized comparative study of targeted versus empirical prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of infective complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy

Background: It is established that antibiotic prophylaxis prevents infection following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. This study compares the infective complications in transrectal prostate biopsy (TRPB) in empirical versus targeted prophylactic antibiotics. Patients and Methods: Urine and rectal swabs were obtained prior to TRPB. They were randomized into targeted antibiotic (TA) and empirical antibiotic (EA) groups. TA had prophylactic antibiotics according to rectal swab culture, whereas EA had the standard parenteral ciprofloxacin. They were followed up weekly for 4 weeks. Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used to compare categorical variables, Student's "t"-test was used to compare means of numerical variables, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: One hundred patients were studied, fifty in each group. The mean age was 66 years, with men aged 60­69 years accounting for 50% of the study population. Providencia stuartii, Escherichia coli, and Citrobacter freundii were the most predominant bacteria identified in the prebiopsy rectal swab culture, with resistance to ciprofloxacin (57%) being much more common than that to levofloxacin (21%). Postbiopsy infection occurred in one (2%) patient in the TA group and five (10%) patients in the EA group. Difference in the infection rate between the two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.042). Three of the patients with postbiopsy infection in the EA group had urosepsis and required hospitalization. Fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria were responsible for infection in all the six patients. TA reduced the risk of postbiopsy infection by 5.6 folds. Conclusion: TA was associated with a decreased risk of infection in TRPB

Endoscopic management of ureteric stones: our initial experience

The aim of this study is to present our initial experience with intracorporeal pneumatic ureterolithotripsy highlighting the pattern of patients' clinical presentation, techniques, and limitation of the procedure.Materials and Methods:This is a retrospective study of cases of ureteric stones managed over a period of 18 months in a private hospital. Data obtained include patients' sociodemography, clinical presentation, stone burden, procedural technique, complication, and need for a secondary procedure. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 21.Results:The total number of patients managed was 20 with an age range of 28­75 years and a mean of 48.2 ± 12.4 years. Majority of them, i.e., 11 (55%) were middle aged. Female gender was more predominant, 11 (55%). Flank pain was the most common mode of presentation. Right-sided stone occurred in 9 (45%), left sided in 7 (35%), and bilateral in 4 (20%). Stone location was in the upper ureter in 4 (16.7%), mid-ureter in 7 (29.2%), and lower ureter in 13 (54.2%). The stone size ranged from 6 to 18 mm with a mean of 9.7 ± 2.5 mm. Four patients (20%) required initial bilateral ureteric stenting before definitive procedure to allow for recovery from sepsis and/or nephropathy. All patients had double-J stenting and were discharged 2 days after the procedure. The procedure was successful in 19 (95%) with 100% stone clearance rate and complete resolution of symptom without any complication. One patient (5%) had a very hard upper ureteric stone which retropulsed into the renal pelvis requiring open nephrolithotomy.Conclusion:Endoscopic treatment of ureteric stone with intracorporeal pneumatic lithotripsy is a safe and effective treatment modality. It is, however, limited in the management of hard upper ureteric stone, especially those that are close to the pelviureteric junction due to the risk of retropulsion of the stone into the kidney