Ultrasound follow up: Is an undetected spontaneous expulsion of stone fragments a sign of extracorporeal shock wave treatment failure in kidney stones?

INTRODUCTION: After extracorporeal lithotripsy (SWL), a spontaneous expulsion of fragments is often reported. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the presence of a stone free status or the presence of clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRFs, defined as "asymptomatic, noninfectious, ≤ 3 mm fragments") in people with undetected spontaneous expulsion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between May and September 2017, we performed a total of 87 treatments. The device used was a Storz Medical Modulith® SLK. All the patients were treated in prone position to reduce respiratory movements and underwent sonography before and four to eight weeks after the treatment. An in line ultrasound targeting was possible with all the stones. People lost to follow up or with ureteral stones were excluded. Patients were divided in groups according to gender, previous treatments, stone diameter and position. RESULTS: We enrolled 73 patients. 57 patients had a single stone and 16 multiple stones. A mean number of 3044 shock waves was administered with a maximum average energy of 0.68mj/mmq. At follow up, 41 patients (56.2%) were found stone free or with CIRFs. The association between undetected expulsion and the presence of CIRFs is considered to be not statistically significant (p = 0.89). Among patients with CIRFs, 25/41 didn't report expulsion. Taking in account the groups our population was divided in, according to gender (p = 0.36), previous treatments (p = 0.44), stone diameter (p = 0.28) and stone position (p = 0.35), the association between undetected spontaneous expulsion and presence of CIRFs was never statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: An undetected spontaneous expulsion of stone fragments could not be considered a sign of SWL treatment failure. The association between undetected expulsion and presence of CIRFs is never statistically significant if gender of the patients, previous treatments, stone diameter and stone position are considered.

Comparison of an electromagnetic and an electrohydraulic lithotripter: Efficacy, pain and complications.

INTRODUCTION: We analyzed efficacy and complications of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and analgesia requirement during the treatment in two groups of patients treated with different lithotripters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patients treated were 189, 102 between September 2016 and April 2017 with HMT Lithotron® LITS 172, electrohydraulic, and 87 between May and September 2017 with Storz Medical Modulith® SLK, electromagnetic. The main differences between the lithotripters are: type of energy source, patient position, frequency and number of shock waves. All the patients underwent sonography before and four to eight weeks after the treatment. The targeting was sonographic for renal stones and X-ray for ureteral stones. All the patients received Ketorolac before the treatment with a supplement of Pethidine if needed. People lost to follow-up and with incomplete data were excluded. RESULTS: We enrolled 173 patients, 94 treated with the electrohydraulic lithotripter and 79 with the electromagnetic one. 43 patients (54%) in the electromagnetic group and 31 (33%) in the electrohydraulic group were stone free or presented clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRFs), defined as asymptomatic, noninfectious, ≤ 3 mm. The association between CIRFs and the kind of lithotripter was statistically significant (p = 0.004). An increased need for analgesia was found in 14.9% of patients in the electromagnetic group and in 81% of patients in the electrohydraulic group (p < 0.001). The access to emergency room (intractable pain, kidney failure, fever, Steintrasse) after the treatment was similar in the two groups (p = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: The best results in stones fragmentation and less analgesia requirement were demonstrated in the electromagnetic lithotripter group. No differences were demonstrated considering the need for emergency room after the treatment.

Intraoperative ultrasound in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: State of the art.

INTRODUCTION: Nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) is of one of the most studied fields in urology due to the balancing between renal function preservation and oncological safety of the procedure. Aim of this short review is to report the state of the art of intra-operative ultrasound as an operative tool to improve localization of small renal masses partially or completely endophytic during robotassisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a literature review by electronic database on Pubmed about the use of intra-operative US in RAPN to evaluate the usefulness and the feasibility of this procedure. RESULTS: Several studies analyzed the use of different US probes during RAPN. Among them some focused on using contrastenhanced ultra sonography (CEUS) for improving the dynamic evaluation of microvascular structure allowing the reduction of ischemia time (IT). We reported that nowaday the use of intraoperative US during RAPN could be helpful to improve the preservation of renal tissue without compromising oncological safety. Moreover, during RAPN there is no need for assistant to hand the US probe increasing surgeon autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a robotic ultrasound probe during partial nephrectomy allows the surgeon to optimize tumor identification with maximal autonomy, and to benefit from the precision and articulation of the robotic instrument during this key step of the partial nephrectomy procedure. Moreover US could be useful to reduce ischemia time (IT). The advantages of nephron-sparing surgery over radical nephrectomy is well established with a pool of data providing strong evidence of oncological and survival equivalency. With the progressive growth of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) techniques, the use of several tools has been progressively developed to help the surgeon in the identification of masses and its vascular net. In this short review we tried to analyze the current use of intra-operative ultrasound as an operative tool to improve localization of small renal masses partially or completely endophytic during RAPN.

The usefulness of antibiotic prophylaxis in invasive urodynamics in postmenopausal female subjects.

This study aims to define the usefulness of antibiotic prophylaxis of urinary tract infection (UTI) in postmenopausal female undergoing invasive urodynamics (IU). Two hundred sixty-two postmenopausal females underwent IU. Before urodynamics, all females were double blindly randomized in two age stratified groups. Group 1 (130 patients) received oral antibiotic prophylaxis with a single 400-mg dose of norfloxacin. Group 2 (132 patients) received norfloxacin placebo. Statistical analysis was performed by a chi (2) test to evaluate differences between groups for UTI incidence rate. Fifty-four patients of 262 (20.6%) resulted affected by UTI [24 of 130 subjects who received antibiotic prophylaxis (18.4%) and 30 of 132 subjects who received placebo (22.7%)]. There was no statically significant difference (P = 0.242) regarding UTI incidence rate between patients who received and those who did not received antibiotic prophylaxis. UTI incidence rate in postmenopausal women undergoing urodynamics is not affected by administration of antibiotic prophylaxis at the desired level of efficacy.

Posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter allows a rapid recovery of continence after transperitoneal videolaparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: Urinary incontinence is one of the major drawbacks of radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). One of the possible reasons for this urinary incontinence is a postoperative deficiency of the rhabdosphincter (RS). It has been recently demonstrated that reconstruction of the posterior aspects of the RS allows a rapid recovery of continence after RRP. This study evaluated the application of this technique in videolaparoscopic radical prostatectomy (VLRP), assessing the percentage of continent patients at 3, 30, and 90 d after catheter removal. METHODS: A two-arm prospective comparative trial was carried out with 31 patients recruited for each arm. Group A underwent standard VLRP and group B underwent VLRP with RS reconstruction (VLRP-R). Continence was defined as no pads or one diaper/24h and was assessed 3, 30, and 90 d after the procedure. RESULTS: At catheter removal, 74.2% versus 25% (p=0.0004) of patients were continent with the VLRP-R technique versus VLRP, respectively. A statistically significant difference was present at 30 d (83.8% vs. 32.3%; p=0.0001) At 90 d the difference, although still present, was not statistically significant (92.3% vs. 76.9%; p=0.25). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary report, the posterior reconstruction of the RS appears to be an easy and feasible technique even in a laparoscopic setting. Time to continence recovery was significantly shortened.

The simultaneous use of telomerase, cytokeratin 20 and CD4 for bladder cancer detection in urine.

OBJECTIVE: Because of the low sensitivity of urinary cytological diagnosis of urinary bladder carcinoma, new molecular diagnostic methods have been proposed. We decided to verify the expression of telomerase mRNA coding for the catalytic component (hTRT), cytokeratin 20 (CK20) and CD4 antigen mRNAs in urine as possible diagnostic tool. METHODS: Evaluation of hTRT, CK20, CD4 mRNAs was performed in 50 ml of naturally voided urine of 205 patients of which 153 with bladder cancer (Tis, n = 11; TaGx, n = 4; TaG1, n = 25; TaG2, n = 26; TaG3, n = 8; T1G1, n = 16; T1G2, n = 17; T1G3, n = 20; T2G2, n = 6; T2G3, n = 13; T3G3, n = 7) and 52 controls. A quantitative expression of hTRT at mRNA level versus TRAP (telomeric repeat amplification protocol) assay was performed in 20 patients and 14 controls. The expression of RT-PCR for hTRT, CK20, CD4 versus urinary cytology was analysed in 44 patients with bladder cancer. Evaluating the three molecular markers together, the result was considered correct when at least two of the markers were positive, suspected when only one marker was positive and negative for diagnosis of tumour when all markers were negative. The performance of the diagnostic model resulted from the logistic analysis evaluated with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: The sensitivity detected for each tumour marker was as follows: for hTRT 90.8%, for CK20 84.3% and for CD4 was 64.7%, while the specificity was 94.2% for CD4 and 78.8% for both hTRT and CK20. When a simultaneous evaluation of the three tumour markers was considered, 88.2% of the diagnoses were correct, 11.8% were suspected for tumour and none were mistaken. When compared with cytology, the simultaneous use of the three markers allowed reaching a correct diagnosis in 88% of the cases in comparison to 25% by urinary cytology. The sensitivity in the detection of bladder cancer was higher for hTRT at mRNA level in comparison with the enzymatic activity detection with TRAP (90% vs. 35%) while the specificity for both markers resulted very high (100%). CONCLUSIONS: These data show that in the future the diagnostic improvement of urine based molecular markers for the detection of bladder cancer in the urine could improve the sensitivity of urinary cytology reducing the need of a cystoscopy.