ABSTRACT
Introducción La presión intrarrenal (PIR) alta es un factor de riesgo de complicaciones infecciosas relacionadas con la ureterorrenoscopia (URS). Aunque diversos métodos han sido descritos para reducir la PIR, todavía no es posible evaluar los valores de PIR en tiempo real durante la URS. El objetivo de este estudio es llevar a cabo una revisión sistemática de la bibliografía relativa a los métodos endoscópicos para la medición de la PIR durante la URS. Métodos Se llevó a cabo una búsqueda y revisión sistemática en Medline, PubMed y Scopus, de acuerdo con la declaración Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta Analysis (PRISMA), y se redactó una síntesis narrativa de los resultados del estudio. Resultados La investigación abarcó un total de 19 artículos. En ellos se presentaban cuatro métodos no invasivos (es decir, endoscópicos) para medir la PIR: catéter ureteral, cable sensor, sistema de irrigación con sensor de presión integrado, y una novedosa vaina de acceso ureteral que integra succión, irrigación y medición de la PIR. Conclusiones El presente documento proporciona una visión global de los sistemas de medición clínica de la PIR durante la URS existentes. Aún no se ha desarrollado un sistema óptimo, pero pronto los urólogos podrán medir la PIR en su práctica diaria. Las implicaciones de esta información durante la cirugía aún se desconocen. Los sistemas capaces de integrar irrigación y succión con monitoreo de PIR y temperatura parecen ser los mejores. (AU)
Introduction High intrarenal pressure (IRP) is a potential risk factor for infectious complications related to URS. Methods to lower IRP have been described. However, it is still not possible to assess live IRP values during URS. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature regarding endoscopic methods to measure IRP during URS. Methods A systematic search and review of Medline, PubMed and Scopus was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) checklist and a narrative synthesis of the study results was performed. Results A total of 19 articles were included in the review. Four non invasive (i.e. endoscopic) methods to measure IRP were reported: ureteral catheter, sensor wire, pressure sensor proximal to an irrigation system and a novel ureteral access sheath that integrates suction, irrigation, and IRP measurement. Conclusions We provide here a comprehensive overview of the reported clinical measuring systems of IRP during URS. The ideal system has not been developed yet, but urologists will be able to measure IRP during their daily practice soon. The implications of having this type of data during surgery remains unknown. Systems that could integrate irrigation, suction, IRP and temperature seems to be ideal. (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Pressure/adverse effects , Ureteroscopy , EndoscopyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: High intrarenal pressure (IRP) is a potential risk factor for infectious complications related to URS. Methods to lower IRP have been described. However, it is still not possible to assess live IRP values during URS. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature regarding endoscopic methods to measure IRP during URS. METHODS: A systematic search and review of Medline, PubMed and Scopus was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) checklist and a narrative synthesis of the study results was performed. RESULTS: A total of 19 articles were included in the review. Four non invasive (i.e. endoscopic) methods to measure IRP were reported: ureteral catheter, sensor wire, pressure sensor proximal to an irrigation system and a novel ureteral access sheath that integrates suction, irrigation, and IRP measurement. CONCLUSIONS: We provide here a comprehensive overview of the reported clinical measuring systems of IRP during URS. The ideal system has not been developed yet, but urologists will be able to measure IRP during their daily practice soon. The implications of having this type of data during surgery remains unknown. Systems that could integrate irrigation, suction, IRP and temperature seems to be ideal.
Subject(s)
Ureter , Ureteroscopy , Inventions , Kidney , Pressure , Ureter/surgery , Ureteroscopy/methods , HumansABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Surgical options for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) become limited when treating large prostates due to steep learning curves and less effective treatment. Aquablation (AquaBeam System, PROCEPT BioRobotics, Inc., USA) could remedy this. We compare the effectiveness of Aquablation in large prostates between 80 cc and 100 cc and very large prostates > 100 cc. METHODS: WATER II (NCT03123250) is a prospective, multicenter, international clinical trial of Aquablation for the surgical treatment of LUTS/BPH in men of age 45-80 years with prostates between 80 cc and 150 cc. Aquablation was performed using the AquaBeam System. The reported analysis compares the subgroup of patients with a baseline prostate size of < 100 cc versus those with a prostate size of > 100 cc. Students' t test was used for continuous variables and Fisher's test for ordinal/binary variables. RESULTS: Of 114 screened patients, 101 meeting eligibility criteria were enrolled at 13 US and 3 Canadian sites between September and December 2017. Mean operative time was 31.2 ± 8 min in the < 100 cc subgroup and 41.7 ± 14.9 min in the > 100 cc subgroup. The average length of stay following the procedure for the < 100 cc subgroup was 1.5 ± 0.7 days versus 1.7 ± 1.1 days for the > 100 cc subgroup. Mean changes in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS quality of life, and IPSS voiding and storage subscores were substantial, occurring soon after treatment and averaging (at 3 months) 16.5, 2.8, 10.6, and 5.8 points, respectively (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Aquablation clinically normalizes outcomes between patients of the < 100 cc and > 100 cc prostate cohorts. It is safe and effective in patients with large prostate glands (> 100 cc) with a smoother learning curve.
Subject(s)
Ablation Techniques/methods , Prostatic Hyperplasia/surgery , Transurethral Resection of Prostate/methods , Water , Aged , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Size , Prostatic Hyperplasia/pathology , Robotic Surgical Procedures/methodsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The Partin Tables represent the most commonly used staging tool for radical prostatectomy (RP) candidates. The Partin Tables' predictions are used to guide the type (nerve preserving RP) and/or the extent (RP with wide resection) of RP. We examined the ability of the Partin Tables' predictions incorrectly assigning the stage at RP. METHODS: The testing of the Partin Tables (external validation) was based on 3105 patients treated with RP at a single European institution. Standard validation metrics were used (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, AUC) to test the three endpoints predicted by the Partin Tables, namely the presence of extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), and lymph node invasion (LNI). RESULTS: Ideal predictions are denoted with 100% accuracy vs. 50% for entirely random predictions. For the 2001 version of the Tables the accuracy defined by the AUC was 79.7, 77.8, and 73.0 for ECE, SVI, and LNI, respectively. For the 2007 version of the Tables the corresponding accuracy estimates were 79.8, 80.5, and 76.2. The relationship between predicted probabilities and observed rates was poor. CONCLUSION: The Partin Tables are meant to guide clinicians about the safety of nerve bundle preservation at RP, about the need for seminal vesicle resection or for lymphadenectomy. Therefore, the use of the Partin Tables predictions may significantly affect the type and/or the extent of RP. In their present format the Partin Tables are not accurate enough to influence the pre-operative decision making regarding the type or extent of RP.
