ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate surgical outcome, complications, and patients satisfaction with the Tube® (Promedon, Cordoba, Argentina) malleable penile prosthesis in diabetic and non-diabetic patients with refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of 128 eligible patients who received Tube malleable penile prostheses at our institute between September 2008 and October 2015 were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 128 patients, who received Tube penile prostheses at our institute, 53 were diabetics and 75 were non-diabetics. Both groups of patients were comparable for mean age, education level, marital status, hospital stay, time to commencing sexual intercourse, and median follow-up. Complications included: inter-corporeal septal perforation (2.3%), glanular urethral injury (1.5%), acute urinary retention (3.9%), superficial wound infection (7%), penile discomfort (9.4%), and penile prostheses infection (5.5%). Moreover, 3.9% developed atrophy of the cavernosal tissue, 5.5% experienced bad cosmesis, 6.3% experienced ejaculatory disorders, and 2.3% developed bladder calculi. In all, 13 prostheses (9.4%) were removed, seven of them due to infection, three on the patients' demand and three due to mechanical failure. The satisfaction rates with the prostheses were 77.3% and 79.4% in the diabetic and non-diabetic patients, respectively; with an overall satisfaction rate of 78.5%. There was no significant difference in the complication rate or prostheses infection between diabetic and non-diabetic patients. CONCLUSION: Tube malleable penile prostheses are associated with low complication and high satisfaction rates. There was no significant difference in the complication rate or prostheses infection between diabetic and non-diabetic patients. A prospective comparative study with a large number of patients is recommended.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Management of renal stones in children with a solitary kidney is a challenge. In the current study, the efficacy and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in these children were determined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Records of children with renal stones who were treated at our institute between August 2011 and August 2014 were retrospectively assessed. Inclusion criteria were: Children with single renal stone <2 cm size, in a solitary kidney. A 7.5 Fr flexible ureteroscope (FURS) was introduced into the ureter over a hydrophilic guidewire under visual and fluoroscopic guidance - applying a back-loading technique. The stone was completely dusted using 200 µm laser fiber (0.2-0.8 joules power and 10-30 Hz frequency). At the end of the maneuver, a 5 Fr JJ stent was inserted into the ureter. The children were discharged home 24 h postoperative - provided that no complications were detected. RESULTS: Fourteen children (3 girls and 11 boys) with median age 9.5 years (range 6-12) were included. The mean stone burden was 12.2 ± 1.5 mm (range 9-20). Stones were successfully accessed in all of the cases by the FURS except for 2 cases in whom a JJ stent was inserted into the ureter and left in place for 2 weeks to achieve passive dilatation. All of the stones were dusted completely. The immediate postoperative stone-free rate (SFR) was 79%, and the final SFR was 100% after 3 weeks. No intraoperative complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: RIRS for renal stone <2 cm in children with a solitary kidney is a single-session procedure with a high SFR, low complication rate, and is a minimally invasive, natural orifice technique.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To determine the necessity of ureteral stent placement after retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RLU) for upper ureteral stones more than 1 cm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 2006 and May 2009, 104 RLUs were performed as primary management of large upper ureteral stones. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: In group 1 (52 patients), RLU was performed without stent placement afterward, and in group 2 (52 patients), the stent was placed after RLU. The mean stone size was 16.8 cm in group 1 and 18.2 cm in group 2. The stent in group 2 was placed cystoscopically. RESULTS: All procedures were performed successfully. The mean operative time was 48 minutes in group 1 vs. 65 minutes in group 2. The mean drainage time was 4.1 days in group 1 vs. 2.3 days in group 2. All the patients were followed up for a period of 6 months with no recorded cases of residual stone or ureteral stricture. CONCLUSION: RLU for large upper ureteral stones could be considered as a primary line for treatment as regards the economic status in developing countries. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) without stent placement for upper ureteral stones is safe, cost effective, has less operative time, and needs no auxiliary procedures when compared with the use of stent placement after LU, which adds costs and discomfort for the patient.
