RESUMO
ABSTRACT Objectives To compare the dusting efficiency and safety with basketing for treating renal stones ≤ 2 cm during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS). Materials and methods This study included 218 patients with renal stones ≤ 2 cm treated with fURS. Among them, 106 patients underwent dusting, and 112 patients underwent fragmentation with basket extraction. All patients were followed up for 3 months postoperatively. The operating time, lasing time, stone-free rate (SFR) and complication rate were compared. Results The mean stone size in the dusting group was 1.3 cm, whereas 1.4 cm in the basketing group. The mean operative time was significantly lower in the dusting group than in the basketing group (43.1±11.7 minutes VS 60.5±13.4 minutes, P <0.05), but the lasing time was significantly longer for the dusting group than for the basketing group (17.7±3.9 minutes VS 14.1±3.6 minutes, P <0.05). SFR was significantly higher in the basketing group immediately after the operation and follow-up after 1 month (76.8% vs 55.7%, P= 0.001 and 88.4% vs 78.3%, P = 0.045). However, the SFR was similar for both groups (88.8% in the dusting group vs. 90.2% in the basketing group) after 3 months postoperatively. There was no statistical difference in the complication rates between the two groups. Conclusions Dusting has advantages in shortening the operation time and reducing the operation cost, but the lasing time was longer compared with the basketing. Although there is no difference in long-term effect, basketing is superior to dusting in terms of short-term SFR. Moreover, dusting should be avoided in some special cases and basketing a better choice. Both techniques are effective for the treatment of renal stones ≤ 2 cm and choice depends on patient demographic and stone characteristics.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Chronic prostatitis has been supposed to be associated with preneoplastic lesions and cancer development. The objective of this study was to examine how chronic inflammation results in a prostatic microenvironment and gene mutation in C57BL/6 mice. METHODS: Immune and bacterial prostatitis mouse models were created through abdominal subcutaneous injection of rat prostate extract protein immunization (EAP group) or transurethral instillation of uropathogenic E. coli 1677 (E. coli group). Prostate histology, serum cytokine level, and genome-wide exome (GWE) sequences were examined 1, 3, and 6 months after immunization or injection. RESULT: In the EAP and E. coli groups, immune cell infiltrations were observed in the first and last months of the entire experiment. After 3 months, obvious proliferative inflammatory atrophy (PIA) and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) were observed accompanied with fibrosis hyperplasia in stroma. The decrease in basal cells (Cytokeratin (CK) 5+/p63+) and the accumulation of luminal epithelial cells (CK8+) in the PIA or PIN area indicated that the basal cells were damaged or transformed into different luminal cells. Hic1, Zfp148, and Mfge8 gene mutations were detected in chronic prostatitis somatic cells. CONCLUSION: Chronic prostatitis induced by prostate extract protein immunization or E. coli infection caused a reactive prostatic inflammation microenvironment and resulted in tissue damage, aberrant atrophy, hyperplasia, and somatic genome mutation.