ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective: Pyeloplasty is considered the gold standard treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). However, the failure rate of pyeloplasty is as high as 10% and repeat pyeloplasty is more difficult. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of balloon dilatation for failed pyeloplasty in children. Materials and Methods: Between 2011 and 2017, 15 patients, aged 6 months to 14 years, were treated with balloon dilation for restenosis of UPJO after a failed pyeloplasty. Ultrasound and intravenous urography were used to evaluate the primary outcome. Success was defined as the relief of symptoms and improvement of hydronephrosis, which was identified by ultrasound at the last follow-up. Results: All patients successfully completed the operation, 13 patients by retrograde approach and 2 patients by antegrade approach. Thirteen patients were followed for a median of 15 (4 to 57) months and 2 patients were lost to follow-up. Resolution of the hydronephrosis was observed in 5 cases. The anteroposterior diameter (APD) of the pelvis decreased by an average of 12.4 ± 14.4mm. Eight patients needed another surgery. The average postoperative hospital stay was 1.78 ± 1.4 days. Two patients experienced fever after balloon dilation. No other complications were found. Conclusions: Balloon dilatation surgery is safe for children, but it is not recommended for failed pyeloplasty in that group of patients, owing to the low success rate.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Infant , Child, Preschool , Child , Adolescent , Urologic Surgical Procedures/methods , Ureteral Obstruction/surgery , Urinary Catheterization/methods , Kidney Pelvis/surgery , Urologic Surgical Procedures/instrumentation , Ureteral Obstruction/diagnostic imaging , Urinary Catheterization/instrumentation , Urography/methods , Reproducibility of Results , Ultrasonography/methods , Treatment Outcome , Hydronephrosis/surgery , Kidney Pelvis/diagnostic imagingABSTRACT
Abstract Objective: To assess the relationship between 5α-reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) and the risk of male breast cancer (MBC). Material and Methods: We systematically searched Medline via PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library Central Register up to May 2017 to identify published articles related to 5ARIs and the risk of MBC. Results: Summary effect estimates were calculated by a random-effect model, and tests for multivariable-unadjusted pooled risk ratios (RR) and heterogeneity, as well as the sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess publication bias. All four studies were conducted in a quality assessment according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale system. The strength of association between 5ARIs and the prevalence of MBC was evaluated by using summarized unadjusted pooled RR with a 95% confidence interval [CI]. Four studies involving 595.776 participants, mean age range from 60 to 73.2 years old, were included in a meta-analysis, which produced a summary unadjusted RR of the risk of MBC for the treatment of 5ARIs of 1.16 (95% CI 0.85-1.58, P=0.36) and the multivariable-adjusted RR is 1.03, (95% CI 0.75-1.41, p=0.86). There was no heterogeneity among included studies (I2=0%, P=0.49). Estimates of total effects were generally consistent with the sensitivity. Conclusion: We did not observe a positive association between the use of 5ARIs and MBC. The small number of breast cancer cases exposed to 5ARIs and the lack of an association in our study suggest that the development of breast cancer should not influence the prescribing of 5ARIs therapy.