Magnetic double-J stent: Evaluation of tolerance and impact on quality of life compared to traditional double-J stent.

INTRODUCTION: The placement of a ureteral stent is one of the most widely performed procedures in urology. It can have a negative impact on the patients' quality of life, requiring a cystoscopy for its removal. The objective of this study is to evaluate the symptoms and impact on quality of life derived from the use of a magnetic double-J stent (Black Star®) and compare them to those presented in patients with a traditional double-J stent (OptiMed®). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a comparative, prospective, randomized study in 46 patients who underwent ureterorenoscopy with double-J stent placement between August 2019 and June 2020. Of all patients included, 23 had a traditional double-J stent placed (group A) and 23 had a magnetic double-J stent (group B) placed. We evaluated the results of the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) in both groups, assessed the technical difficulty related to stent removal and the pain during the procedure using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). We also reviewed the need for medical attention due to problems related to the stent or after its removal. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding the answers in the USSQ and the complications related to the use of the stent. Group B showed less pain (1.52 vs. 4, VAS, p = 0.001) and less difficulty during removal (1.61 vs. 3, p < 0.001) associated with a shorter procedure duration (11.65 min vs. 22.17 min p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The tolerance shown by the use of magnetic double-J is comparable to the tolerance of traditional stent, since it does not cause an increase in urinary symptoms nor worsens the quality of life of patients during its use.

Treatment for rectourethral fistulas after radical prostatectomy with biological material interposition through a perineal access.

INTRODUCTION: Rectal injury is a rare complication after extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The development of rectourethral fistulas (URF) from rectal injuries is one of the most feared and of more complex resolution in urology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 2013 and 2020 we have operated on a total of 5 patients with URF after extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy through a perineal access using the interposition of biological material. All fistulas had a diameter of less than 6 mm at endoscopy and were less than 6 cm apart from the anal margin. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 64 years old. All patients had a previous bowel and urinary diversion for at least 3 months. Under general anesthesia and with the patient in a forced lithotomy position, fistulorraphy and interposition of biological material of porcine origin (lyophilized porcine dermis [Permacol®]) were performed through a perineal access. Mean operative time was 174 min (140-210). Most patients were discharged on the third postoperative day. The bladder catheter was left in place for a mean of 40 days (30-60). Prior to its removal, cystography and a Gastrografin® barium enema were performed, showing resolution of the fistula in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: The interposition of biological material from porcine dermis through perineal approach is a safe alternative with good results in patients submitted to urethrorectal fistulorraphy after radical prostatectomy.

Catéter doble J magnético: evaluación de la tolerancia e impacto en la calidad de vida en comparación con el catéter doble J tradicional / Magnetic double-J stent: evaluation of tolerance and impact on quality of life compared to traditional double-J stent

Introducción: La colocación de un catéter doble J (DJ) es uno de los procedimientos más realizados en urología. Puede causar un impacto negativo en la calidad de vida, siendo necesaria una cistoscopia para su extracción. El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar la sintomatología e impacto en la calidad de vida derivados del uso del catéter DJ magnético (Black Star®) y compararla con la del DJ tradicional (OptiMed®).Material y métodosRealizamos un estudio comparativo, prospectivo y aleatorizado en 46 pacientes sometidos a ureterorrenoscopia (URS) en quienes se colocó un DJ entre agosto del 2019 y junio del 2020. De los pacientes incluidos, 23 llevaron un DJ tradicional (grupo A) y 23 un DJ magnético (grupo B). Valoramos en ambos grupos los resultados del cuestionario de síntomas de catéter ureteral (USSQ). Evaluamos el dolor de la extracción mediante la escala visual analógica (EVA) y la dificultad de la retirada. Revisamos la necesidad de atención médica por problemas relacionados con el catéter o surgidos tras la extracción.ResultadosNo observamos diferencias estadísticamente significativas en el cuestionario USSQ, ni en las complicaciones. El grupo B presentó: menor dolor de la extracción (EVA de 1,52 vs. 4, p = 0,001), menor dificultad en la retirada (1,61 vs. 3, p < 0,001) y menor tiempo de extracción (11,65 vs. 22,17 min p < 0,001).ConclusionesEl DJ magnético es un catéter ureteral que presenta una tolerancia equiparable a los tradicionales, ya que no genera un incremento de la sintomatología urinaria ni empeora la calidad de vida de los pacientes durante su uso. (AU)

Introduction: The placement of a ureteral stent is one of the most widely performed procedures in urology. It can have a negative impact on the patients’ quality of life, requiring a cystoscopy for its removal. The objective of this study is to evaluate the symptoms and impact on quality of life derived from the use of a magnetic double-J stent (Black Star ®) and compare them to those presented in patients with a traditional double-J stent (OptiMed®).Material and methodsWe conducted a comparative, prospective, randomized study in 46 patients who underwent ureterorenoscopy with double-J stent placement between August 2019 and June 2020. Of all patients included, 23 had a traditional double-J stent placed (group A) and 23 had a magnetic double-J stent (group B) placed. We evaluated the results of the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) in both groups, assessed the technical difficulty related to stent removal and the pain during the procedure using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). We also reviewed the need for medical attention due to problems related to the stent or after its removal.ResultsThere were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding the answers in the USSQ and the complications related to the use of the stent. Group B showed less pain (1,52 vs. 4, VAS, p = 0.001) and less difficulty during removal (1,61 vs. 3, p < 0,001) associated with a shorter procedure duration (11,65 min vs. 22,17 min p < 0,001).ConclusionsThe tolerance shown by the use of magnetic double-J is comparable to the tolerance of traditional stent, since it does not cause an increase in urinary symptoms nor worsens the quality of life of patients during its use. (AU)

Tratamiento mínimamente invasivo de los síntomas del tracto urinario inferior por hiperplasia benigna de próstata. Nuestra experiencia inicial con Urolift(R) bajo anestesia local y sedación / Minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Our initial experience with Urolift(R) under local anaesthesia and sedation

Introducción: El tratamiento de los síntomas del tracto urinario inferior secundarios a hiperplasia benigna de próstata con la utilización del sistema Urolift(R) se lleva realizando desde 2005 con buenos resultados a medio plazo. En este trabajo presentamos nuestra experiencia realizando esta técnica bajo anestesia local y sedación en 2 centros españoles. Material y métodos: Se llevó a cabo un estudio prospectivo con 20 pacientes tratados con Urolift(R) bajo anestesia local y sedación entre abril de 2017 y abril de 2018. El protocolo anestésico consistía en la colocación de 2 lubricantes con lidocaína fríos (el primero 10 min antes de la intervención y el segundo momentos antes de iniciar la endoscopia). A un tercio de los pacientes se les añadió un bloqueo prostático similar al que se realiza en las biopsias de próstata y, según la tolerancia, durante el procedimiento, se les añadió 1 mg de midazolam intravenoso. El objetivo primario es evaluar la tolerabilidad de este procedimiento bajo anestesia local usando la escala visual analógica. Resultados: El procedimiento ha sido realizado en 20 pacientes en 2 centros diferentes usando el mismo protocolo anestésico. La puntuación media en la escala escala visual analógica de dolor fue de 1,37 para la introducción del cistoscopio y de 1,19 para la colocación de los implantes. A la pregunta de si el dolor había sido mayor, menor o igual al de la cistoscopia diagnóstica, solo el 20% de los pacientes respondieron que había sido mayor. En todos los casos hubo una buena tolerancia al procedimiento, no precisándose en ninguno de ellos el cambio del tipo de anestesia. Conclusiones: Consideramos que la utilización del Urolift(R) bajo anestesia local y sedación es un método bien tolerado, seguro y eficaz para el tratamiento de los síntomas del tracto urinario inferior por hiperplasia benigna de próstata

Introduction: The treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia with the Urolift(R) system has been carried out since 2005 with good results in the medium term. In this work, we present our experience performing this technique under local anaesthesia and sedation in 2 Spanish centres. Material and methods: A prospective study was conducted with 20 patients treated with Urolift(R) under local anaesthesia and sedation between April 2017 and April 2018. The anaesthesia protocol consisted in the placement of 2 lubricants with cold lidocaine (the first one, 10 min before the intervention, and the second one, just before introducing the cystoscopy). A prostate block (similar to the one employed in prostate biopsies) was administered to one third of the patients and 1mg of intravenous midazolam was added if required during the procedure. Our primary objective is to evaluate the tolerability of this procedure under local anaesthesia using the validated Visual Analogue Scale measurement instrument. Results: The procedure has been performed under the same anaesthetic protocol to 20 patients from 2 different centres. The average pain scores on the Visual Analogue Scale were 1.37 for the cystoscopy procedure and 1.19 for the placement of the implants. When asked whether the pain sensations had been higher, lower or the same during the procedure or at the preoperative cystoscopy, only 18% of the patients responded it was higher. In all cases there was a good tolerance to the procedure, and changes to the anaesthesia protocols were never required. Conclusions: We consider that the Urolift(R) system under local anaesthesia and sedation is a well-tolerated, safe and effective method for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia

Minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Our initial experience with Urolift® under local anaesthesia and sedation. / Tratamiento mínimamente invasivo de los síntomas del tracto urinario inferior por hiperplasia benigna de próstata. Nuestra experiencia inicial con Urolift® bajo anestesia local y sedación.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia with the Urolift® system has been carried out since 2005 with good results in the medium term. In this work, we present our experience performing this technique under local anaesthesia and sedation in 2 Spanish centres. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective study was conducted with 20 patients treated with Urolift® under local anaesthesia and sedation between April 2017 and April 2018. The anaesthesia protocol consisted in the placement of 2 lubricants with cold lidocaine (the first one, 10min before the intervention, and the second one, just before introducing the cystoscopy). A prostate block (similar to the one employed in prostate biopsies) was administered to one third of the patients and 1mg of intravenous midazolam was added if required during the procedure. Our primary objective is to evaluate the tolerability of this procedure under local anaesthesia using the validated Visual Analogue Scale measurement instrument. RESULTS: The procedure has been performed under the same anaesthetic protocol to 20 patients from 2 different centres. The average pain scores on the Visual Analogue Scale were 1.37 for the cystoscopy procedure and 1.19 for the placement of the implants. When asked whether the pain sensations had been higher, lower or the same during the procedure or at the preoperative cystoscopy, only 18% of the patients responded it was higher. In all cases there was a good tolerance to the procedure, and changes to the anaesthesia protocols were never required. CONCLUSIONS: We consider that the Urolift® system under local anaesthesia and sedation is a well-tolerated, safe and effective method for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia.