Effect of preoperative metabolic profiling to reduce the risk of kidney stones after bariatric surgery in patients with a history of stone formation.

BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is associated with an increased risk of kidney stone formation. This is not observed after sleeve gastrectomy (SG). OBJECTIVES: Aim of this study was to assess whether preoperative metabolic profiling is helpful in selecting the most optimal bariatric procedure for patients with a kidney stone history. SETTING: General hospital, the Netherlands. METHODS: Patients with a kidney stone history and in the run up to bariatric surgery were screened with non-contrast abdominal computed tomography (CT), serum profiling, and 24-hour urine analysis. Those with stones on radiologic imaging and/or high preoperative urinary oxalate were advised to undergo SG instead of RYGB. Pre- and postoperative urine and serum profile differences between both groups were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: Postoperatively, RYGB (N = 28, M:F = 8:20) was associated with a 23.5% reduction in urinary volume, a 85% increase in urinary oxalate excretion with a 230% increase in calcium oxalate (CaOx) supersaturation and a 62% decrease in urinary citrate. Although SG (N = 30, M:F = 12:18) was also associated with a reduction in urinary volume, it had no adverse effects on urinary oxalate and citrate excretion, nor on calcium oxalate supersaturation (CaOx-SS). Both RYGB and SG showed favorable effects on postoperative sodium, calcium, uric acid, and phosphate excretion. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that preoperative metabolic profiling is important to select the optimal bariatric procedure in patients with an a priori increased risk of kidney stone development. These patients should be strongly encouraged to undergo SG instead of RYGB to prevent progressive or recurrent kidney stone disease.

α-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones: a Cochrane systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of α-blockers compared to standard therapy or placebo for ureteric stones of ≤10 mm confirmed by imaging in adult patients presenting with symptoms of ureteric stone disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search in multiple databases and grey literature with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until November 2017. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating ureteric stone passage in adult patients that compared α-blockers with standard therapy or placebo. Two review authors were independently responsible for study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. We performed a meta-analysis using a random-effect model. The quality of evidence was assessed on outcome basis according to Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We included 67 studies, with 10 509 participants overall. Of these, 15 studies with 5 787 participants used a placebo. Stone clearance: treatment with an α-blocker may result in a large increase in stone clearance (risk ratio [RR] 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-1.55; low-quality evidence), corresponding to 278 more (95% CI: 223-340 more) stone clearances per 1 000 participants. For major adverse events, treatment with an α-blocker may have little effect (RR 1.25, 95% CI: 0.80-1.96; low-quality evidence), which corresponds to five more (95% CI four fewer to 19 more) major adverse events per 1 000 participants. Patients treated with α-blockers may also experience shorter stone expulsion times (mean difference [MD] -3.40 days, 95% CI: -4.17 to -2.63; low-quality evidence), use less diclofenac (MD -82.41 mg, 95% CI: -122.51 to -42.31; low-quality evidence) and likely require fewer hospitalisations (RR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34-0.77; moderate-quality evidence). Meanwhile, the need for surgical intervention appears similar (RR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.53-1.02; low-quality evidence). Based on a pre-defined subgroup analysis (test for subgroup difference, P = 0.002), there may be a different effect of α-blockers based on stone size with RRs of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.98-1.15; P = 0.16; I² = 62%) for stones of ≤5 mm vs 1.45 (95% CI: 1.22-1.72; P < 0.0001; I² = 59%) for stones of >5 mm. We did not find evidence for possible subgroup effects based on stone location or α-blocker type. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ureteric stones, α-blockers likely increase stone clearance but probably also slightly increase the risk of major adverse events. Subgroup analyses suggest that α-blockers may be less effective in smaller (≤5 mm) than larger stones (>5 mm).

Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones.

BACKGROUND: Ureteral colic is a common reason for patients to seek medical care. Alpha-blockers are commonly used to improve stone passage through so-called medical expulsive therapy (MET), but their effectiveness remains controversial. This is an update of a 2014 Cochrane review; since that time, several large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported, making this update relevant. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of alpha-blockers compared with standard therapy for ureteral stones 1 cm or smaller confirmed by imaging in adult patients presenting with symptoms of ureteral stone disease. SEARCH METHODS: On 18 November 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO Portal/ICTRP to identify all published/unpublished and ongoing trials. We checked all references of included and review articles and conference proceedings for articles relevant to this review. We sent letters to investigators to request information about unpublished or incomplete studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of ureteral stone passage in adult patients that compared alpha-blockers versus standard therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened studies for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures. We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were stone clearance and major adverse events; secondary outcomes were stone expulsion time, number of pain episodes, use of diclofenac, hospitalisation, and surgical intervention. We assessed the quality of evidence on a per-outcome basis using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 67 studies with 10,509 participants overall. Of these, 15 studies with 5787 participants used a placebo.Stone clearance: Based on the overall analysis, treatment with an alpha-blocker may result in a large increase in stone clearance (risk ratio (RR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 1.55; low-quality evidence). A subset of higher-quality, placebo-controlled trials suggest that the likely effect is probably smaller (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25; moderate-quality evidence), corresponding to 116 more (95% CI 51 more to 182 more) stone clearances per 1000 participants.Major adverse events: Based on the overall analysis, treatment with an alpha-blocker may have little effect on major adverse events (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.96; low-quality evidence). A subset of higher-quality, placebo-controlled trials suggest that alpha-blockers likely increase the risk of major adverse events slightly (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.86), corresponding to 29 more (95% CI 3 more to 75 more) major adverse events per 1000 participants.Patients treated with alpha-blockers may experience shorter stone expulsion times (mean difference (MD) -3.40 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -2.63; low-quality evidence), may use less diclofenac (MD -82.41, 95% CI -122.51 to -42.31; low-quality evidence), and likely require fewer hospitalisations (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77; moderate-quality evidence), corresponding to 69 fewer hospitalisations (95% CI 93 fewer to 32 fewer) per 1000 participants. Meanwhile, the need for surgical intervention appears similar (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02; low-quality evidence), corresponding to 28 fewer surgical interventions (95% CI 51 fewer to 2 more) per 1000 participants.A predefined subgroup analysis (test for subgroup differences; P = 0.002) suggests that effects of alpha-blockers may vary with stone size, with RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.15; P = 0.16; I² = 62%) for stones 5 mm or smaller versus 1.45 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.72; P < 0.0001; I² = 59%) for stones larger than 5 mm. We found no evidence suggesting possible subgroup effects based on stone location or alpha-blocker type. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For patients with ureteral stones, alpha-blockers likely increase stone clearance but probably also slightly increase the risk of major adverse events. Subgroup analyses suggest that alpha-blockers may be less effective for smaller (5 mm or smaller) than for larger stones (greater than 5 mm).

Angiosarcoma of the prostate: a more frequent finding in the future owing to radiotherapy? A literature review with treatment implications based on a case report.

OBJECTIVE: An increase in the incidence of prostate angiosarcoma may be expected owing to the exponential increase in the use of radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma in recent decades and the possible aetiology of radiation exposure on the development of angiosarcoma in general. The objective of this study was to give an overview of cases in the literature based on a case report of prostate angiosarcoma in a hospital in the Netherlands, and to discuss optimal treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All (related) articles In PubMed/Medline and Embase with possible cases of angiosarcoma were screened on title and abstract. A case of prostate angiosarcoma identified in the authors' institution was included. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 13 cases of prostate angiosarcoma. The earliest six publications lack essential data. Four patients had a history of radiotherapy. The present patient developed angiosarcoma following brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Therapy consisted of radical surgery with or without chemotherapy in five cases. In eight cases curative therapy was not reported or not possible. Mean follow-up was only 1 year. Four patients died within 1 year of diagnosis, irrespective of treatment choice. One patient, treated with a combination of radical surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, was still alive 36 months after therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The findings confirm that prostate angiosarcoma is mostly radiation induced. This patient is the first case of prostate angiosarcoma after primary brachytherapy. Angiosarcoma may occur more often in the future owing to widespread use of brachytherapy and radiotherapy of the prostate. Current guidelines on management of angiosarcoma suggest radical surgery in local disease as the primary treatment of choice.

Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones.

BACKGROUND: Urinary stone disease is one of the most common reasons for patients visiting a urology practice, affecting about 5% to 10% of the population. Annual costs for stone disease have rapidly increased over the years and most patients with ureteral colic or other symptoms seek medical care. Stone size and location are important predictors of stone passage. In most cases medical expulsive therapy is an appropriate treatment modality and most studies have been performed with alpha-blockers. Alpha-blockers tend to decrease intra-ureteral pressure and increase fluid passage which might increase stone passage. Faster stone expulsion will decrease the rate of complications, the need for invasive interventions and eventually decrease healthcare costs. A study on the effect of alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy in ureteral stones is therefore warranted. OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to answer the following question: does medical treatment with alpha-blockers compared to other pharmacotherapy or placebo impact on stone clearance rate, in adult patients presenting with symptoms of ureteral stones less than 10 mm confirmed by imaging? Other clinically relevant outcomes such as stone expulsion time, hospitalisation, pain scores, analgesic use and adverse effects have also been explored. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 9 July 2012 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, handsearching conference proceedings, and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing alpha-blockers with other pharmacotherapy or placebo on ureteral stone passage in adult patients were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Reporting bias was investigated using funnel plots. Subgroup analysis was used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed removing studies of poor methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-two studies (5864 participants) were included. The stone-free rates were significantly higher in the alpha-blocker group (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.64) when compared to standard therapy. Stone expulsion time was 2.91 days shorter with the use of alpha-blockers (MD -2.91, 95% CI -4.00 to -1.81). Use of alpha-blockers reduced the number of pain episodes (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.01), the need for analgesic medication (diclofenac) (MD -38.17 mg, 95% CI -74.93 to -1.41) and hospitalisation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.97). Patients using alpha-blockers were more likely to experience adverse effects when compared to standard therapy (RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.45) or placebo (RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.96). Most adverse effects were mild of origin and did not lead to cessation of therapy, and several studies reported no adverse events in either the treatment or control group.In 7/32 studies patients and doctors were both blinded. In the other studies blinding was not described in the methods or no blinding had taken place. Two studies described incomplete data and only one study showed a relatively high number of patients who withdrew from the study. These factors limited the methodological strength of the evidence found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of alpha-blockers in patients with ureteral stones results in a higher stone-free rate and a shorter time to stone expulsion. Alpha-blockers should therefore be offered as part of medical expulsive therapy as one of the primary treatment modalities.

The Wallstent: long-term follow-up of metal stent placement for the treatment of benign ureteroileal anastomotic strictures after Bricker urinary diversion.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term follow-up (primary and secondary patency) of metal stent placement in benign ureteroileal anastomotic strictures after Bricker urinary diversion and to compare the failed treatment group with the group of successfully treated patients to search for predisposing factors of stent failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For patients treated since 1989 for benign ureteroileal strictures after Bricker urinary diversion with end-to-side anastomosis, we retrospectively collected data on clinical history, stent placement, auxiliary measures and patency rates from a prospectively kept database. RESULTS: In all, 49 patients (mean age 64 years) underwent 56 metal stent procedures. Placement of the stent was possible in all patients. Stent patency without auxiliary treatment remained adequate in 23 cases (primary patency of 41.1%, mean follow-up 37.7 months). A secondary treatment was successfully performed in 11 patients who had stent obstruction, mostly caused by hyperplastic reaction, encrustation, or migration of the stent. The secondary patency rate was 60.7% (mean follow-up 55.8 months), comparable with patency rates of 36-100% described in literature with mostly small patient groups and much shorter follow-up periods. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge we report the largest series of metal stenting in benign ureteroileal anastomotic strictures with the longest follow-up. We show that placement of a metal stent can lead to a permanent de-obstruction in approximately six out of 10 patients with preservation of renal function.

Ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in response to air-conducted sound in Ménière's disease.

BACKGROUND: Currently, Ménière's disease is predominantly diagnosed through clinical criteria. Additional standard vestibular testing, such as nystagmography, can show variable responses. In the last decade, the cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) has shown to be of additive value in diagnosing Ménière's disease. In this study, the results of the ocular VEMP (oVEMP) in response to air-conducted sound will be discussed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate possible changes of the oVEMP in a large group (n = 37) of patients with Ménière's disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 55 subjects without Ménière's disease and 37 patients with Ménière's disease, oVEMPs in response to air-conducted sound stimulation (tone-burst, 500 Hz; maximum stimulus level, 120 dB sound pressure level) were studied. Recording was performed in upgaze with surface electrodes underneath both eyes. The burden of the test was scored by all subjects on a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: In patients with Ménière's disease the response rates are lower, the oVEMP amplitudes are smaller, and thresholds are higher than in subjects without Ménière's disease. This effect is observed in both ears of patients with Ménière's disease. The affected ear is more altered than the clinically unaffected ear. CONCLUSION: The air-conducted oVEMP can be a relevant addition to the current diagnostic workup of patients with possible Ménière's disease. A lower response rate, smaller amplitude, and higher threshold of the oVEMP indicate the pathologic disease in this population.