ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Chronic testicular pain remains an important challenge for urologists. At present there are many treatment modalities available for chronic orchialgia. Some patients remain in pain despite a conservative treatment. Microsurgical denervation of spermatic cord appears to be successful in relieving pain in patients who fail conservative management. We assessed the long-term efficacy, complications and patient perceptions of microsurgical denervation of the spermatic cord in the treatment of chronic orchialgia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was conducted from January 2007 to January 2016 which included men with testicular pain of >3 months duration, failure of conservative management, persistent of pain for >3 months after treating the underlying cause. Total 48 patients with 62 testicular units (14 bilateral) showed the response to spermatic cord block and underwent Microsurgical Denervation of Spermatic Cord. RESULTS: Out of 62 testicular units (14 bilateral) which were operated, complete 2 years follow-up data were available for 38 testicular units. Out of these 38 units, 31 units (81.57%) had complete pain relief, 4 units (10.52%) had partial pain, and 3 units (7.89%) were non-responders. Complications were superficial wound infection in 3 units (4.83%), hydrocele in 2 units (3.22%), subcutaneous seroma in 2 units (3.22%), and an incisional hematoma in 1unit (1.61%) out of 62 operated testicular units. CONCLUSIONS: Idiopathic chronic orchialgia remains a difficult condition to manage. If surgery is considered, microsurgical denervation of spermatic cord should be considered as a first surgical approach to get rid of pain and sparing the testicle.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: A local anaesthetic with fast onset, short and reliable duration of anaesthesia may be preferable for day care urological surgeries. Low dose lignocaine is believed to act faster and to have a shorter duration of action than low dose bupivacaine. Use of lignocaine for spinal anesthesia is discouraged now a days because of rare reports of transient neurological symptoms. The purpose of this study was to compare effectiveness and safety of low dose of lignocaine + butorphanol against low dose of bupivacaine for day care urological surgeries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective randomized control trial was conducted between December 2012 to November 2015. After taking ethical committe approval and patient consent, total 990 patients were randomized in two groups. Group A received 0.5 mL of 5% lignocaine (25 mg) + 0.3 mL butorphanol (0.3 mg) and group B received 1 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine (5 mg) for spinal anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia was given at the L3-L4 interspace with the patient in the sitting or lateral position. The criteria for evaluation were time till onset of sensory and motor block, duration of sensory and motor block, time till ambulation, time till fit for discharge and any complications. RESULTS: Both the groups were comparable in terms of age, male to female ratio, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade and duration surgery. Group A and Group B were statistically different in terms of mean time till onset of sensory block (120±22 sec and 274±36 sec), onset of motor block (228±34 sec and 372±41 sec), duration of sensory block (100±21 min and 230±28 min), duration of motor block (60±15 min and 152±23 min), time till ambulation (138±24 min and 292±48 min), time till fit for discharge (256±35 min and 428±46 min) respectively (<0.0001). Nausea, vomitings, hypotension, bradycarida and pruritis were less in group A compared to group B (<0.01). None of patient in any group had temporary or permanent neurological defecit. CONCLUSION: Spinal anaesthesia is an effective as well as a safe modality to anaesthetize the patient for day care urological procedures. This study shows lignocaine + butorphanol is preferable over bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia for day care urological procedures. It also favours day care surgery at remote areas with lesser medical facilities. It helps to minimize requirement of medical and paramedical staff, thus further extending scope of day care urological surgeries.
ABSTRACT
Healthcare is expensive for a large proportion of the population in spite of high per capita income and good health insurance penetration. In an effort to reduce cost of the procedure, reprocessing of devices was started in the late 1970s. Reprocessing practice includes various measures such as proper cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization procedures. As reprocessing is aimed at reducing cost, there is a potential risk of compromising patient safety due to cross contamination after inadequate sterilization. There is also risk of performance alteration of urological reprocessed devices during sterilization/disinfection processing. Therefore, there is a need for formulating proper guidelines to decide methods of reprocessing for various urological equipment. There is also need to discuss the problematic areas that urologists face and to find their solutions. A PubMed search was made in September 2016, using key words "reprocessing of medical devices," "Single Use Devices," "methods of reprocessing of devices in clinical practice," "use of formalin chamber," "urological disposable sterilization," etc., After excluding duplicates, all English articles were reviewed by title and abstract. Full texts of selected articles were obtained, and these articles were cross-referenced to find any other related articles. All the articles were reviewed. A product can be reused if it can be economically reprocessed with validated protocols with preservation of its function. There is no reason to discard it after one use. This practice is useful for controlling economics of a urological case and to reduce the financial burden. Current Food and Drug Administration guidelines are stringent. The contamination described to test the sterilization process in the suggested guidelines actually does never exist in clinical practice. Therefore, new guidelines considering the clinical practice scenario are desirable.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Inguinal lymph node involvement is an important prognostic factor in penile cancer. Inguinal lymph node dissection allows staging and treatment of inguinal nodal disease. However, it causes morbidity and is associated with complications such as lymphocele, skin loss, and infection. AIMS: To report our institutional experience with video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) for radical management of inguinal nodes in patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: It is a prospective analysis of data of patients that underwent VEIL, by a single surgeon, from 2008 to 2015. 14 patients of penile carcinoma were suitable for VEIL technique were included in this study and followed. Data analyzed included mean operative time, mean lymph node yield, intraoperative complications, cutaneous complication, lymph-related complications, and surgical emphysema. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 57.8 years (range: 45-70 years). Mean operative time for VEIL was 194.86 min (178-210 min). Mean lymph node yield was 7.68 (range: 5-11 nodes). No intraoperative complication was experienced during series. We noted no cutaneous complications, localized lymphocele were seen in total 6 units out of 22 units (27.2%). Surgical emphysema is seen in 3 limbs (13.63%). There was significantly decreased overall morbidity in our study. Follow-up of 10 out of 14 patients with median of 48 months shows no recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In our early experience, VEIL is a safe and feasible technique in patients with penile carcinoma who require radical inguinal lymphadenectomy. It allows the removal of inguinal lymph nodes within the same limits as in conventional surgical dissection and reduces surgical morbidity substantially.
