Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of pediatric urolithiasis: a single institution experience

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of the electromagnetic lithotripter in the treatment of pediatric lithiasis to that of the earlier electrohydraulic model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups of children with lithiasis aged between 10 and 180 months who underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). In the first group (26 children), ESWL was performed by using the electrohydraulic MPL 9000X Dornier lithotripter between 1994 and 2003 while in the second group (19 children) the electromagnetic EMSE 220 F-XP Dornier lithotripter was used from April 2003 to May 2006. RESULTS: In the first group, 21/26 children (80.7 percent) were stone free at first ESWL session. Colic pain resolved by administration of an oral analgesic in 6 (23 percent), brief hematuria (< 24 h) resolved with increased fluid intake in 5 (19.2 percent), while slightly elevated body temperature (< 38°C) occurred in 4 (15.3 percent). Four children (15.3 percent) failed to respond to treatment and were treated with ureteroscopy. In the second group 18/19 children were completely stone free at first ESWL session (94.7 percent). Complications were infrequent and of minor importance: colic pain treated with oral analgesic occurred in 1 (5.26 percent), brief hematuria (< 24 h), resolved with increased fluid intake in 4 (21 percent) and slightly elevated body temperature (< 38°C) monitored for 48 hours occurred in 6 (31.5 percent). Statistical analysis showed that electromagnetic lithotripter is more efficacious and safer than the earlier electrohydraulic model. CONCLUSIONS: Technological development not only has increased efficacy and safety of lithotripter devices in treating pediatric lithiasis, but it also provided less painful lithotripsy by eliminating the need for general anesthesia.

The effects of lovastatin on conventional medical treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms with finasteride

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether or not statins have any impact on the progression of components of benign prostatic hyperplasia (lower urinary tract symptoms severity, prostate volume and serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) when combined with other agents inhibiting growth of prostate cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a preliminary, clinical study. Eligible patients were aged > 50 yrs, with International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) between 9 and 19, total prostate volume (TPV) > 40 mL, and serum PSA > 1.5 ng/mL. Patients were divided in two groups: those with and those without lipidemia. After selection, eligible BPH patients with lipidemia (n = 18) were prescribed lovastatin 80 mg daily and finasteride 5 mg daily, while eligible patients without lipidemia (n = 15) were prescribed only finasteride 5 mg daily. IPSS, TPV and serum PSA were evaluated at end point (4 months). RESULTS: There was no difference between the two groups on the primary end point of mean change from baseline in IPSS (p = 0.69), TPV (p = 0.90) and PSA (p = 0.16) after 4 months of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term lovastatin treatment does not seem to have any effect on IPSS, TPV and PSA in men with prostatic enlargement due to presumed BPH.