[Interpretation of the metabolic study in renal lithiasis and its treatment]. / Interpretación del estudio metabólico en la litiasis renal y su tratamiento.

Urolithiasis is a common disease, and is an important health problem that is associated with a great economic burden. The nature of stone disease varies according by dietary and lifestyle factors, including, among others, climate variations. The majority of patients will suffer a new lithiasic episode at some point in their life, unless preventive measures, such as changing lifestyles and dietary habits, are put in place to avoid it. The risk factors involved in lithogenesis should be evaluated in order to reduce recurrences. In the majority of these patients, metabolic changes are observed in the urine that predispose lithogenesis. The kind of evaluation depends on stone composition and on the clinical presentation. A diagnosis of systemic and renal diseases of lithogenic nature can be diagnosed with these studies, and they also enable the adoption of precise prophylactic measures that achieve control of recurrence in a great number of patients.

Beneficio de la nefrectomía en el tratamiento del carcinoma de células renales metastásico / Benefit of on nephrectomy for treating metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Introducción: El tratamiento sistémico del carcinoma de células renales metastásico (CCRm) ha cambiado con la aparición de nuevas terapias, planteándose la utilidad de la nefrectomía (NFT) en estos pacientes. Objetivo: Analizar si la NFT asociada a tratamiento sistémico prolonga el tiempo libre de progresión (TLP) y la supervivencia global (SG). Material y métodos: Estudio descriptivo restrospectivo de 45 pacientes con CCRm entre 2006-2014. Se descartaron casos avanzados con tratamiento paliativo o con metástasis únicas tratados exclusivamente con cirugía. Resultados: Finalmente 34 pacientes fueron tratados con tratamiento sistémico. En 26 se empleó además cirugía. El 70% presentaban riesgo intermedio en la clasificación de Motzer y un índice de Karnofsky > 80%. El TLP fue de 7 m, encontrándose diferencias significativas entre los grupos con y sin NFT (10 vs. 4 m). Hubo menor TLP en pacientes con Motzer alto (p < 0,0001). La SG fue de 11,5 m. Se encontró mayor SG en pacientes con índice de Karnofsky > 80 (13 vs. 5 m; p = 0,005), Motzer medio/bajo (14 vs. 3 m; p=0,0001), NFT (14 vs. 6m; p = 0,001) y tratamiento inhibidor mTOR en segunda línea (9 vs. 5 m; p = 0,003). En el análisis multivariable solo la NFT (p = 0,006; HR 4,5) y un Motzer medio/bajo demostraron una mayor supervivencia (p = 0,020; HR 8,9). Conclusiones: El TLP y la SG aumentaron significativamente en pacientes con NFT asociada, en CCRm de riesgo intermedio/bajo (Motzer). La SG además aumentó en pacientes tratados con mTOR de segunda línea y en pacientes con índice de Karnofsky > 80% en el análisis univariable, no pudiendo demostrarlo en el estudio multivariable

Introduction: Systemic treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has changed with the new therapies, and it is not clear if nephrectomy (NEP) has a survival benefit in this kind of patients. Objective: To investigate if NEP associated to systemic treatment improves overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Material and methods: A retrospective, observational, descriptive study of 45 patients with diagnosis of mRCC between 2006-2014. Advanced cases with only palliative care were excluded, also patients with solitary metastasis who were managed with surgical resection. Results: Finally 34 patients were treated with systemic treatment. Twenty-six also with surgery associated. Seventy percent were intermediate/low risk at the Motzer classification and > 80% Karnofsky performance status. PFS was 7 m. NEP improves PFS (10 vs. 4 m). High risk Motzer decreased PFS (P < .001). The OS was 11.5m. Patients with Karnofsky performance status > 80, intermediate or low risk Motzer treated with NEP and mTOR as second line treatment, increased the OS (14 vs. 3 m, P = .0001; 14 vs. 6 m, P = .001; and 9 vs. 5m, P = .003, respectively). In the multivariate analysis only NEP (P = 0,006; HR 4.5) and intermediate/low risk at the Motzer classification(P = .020; HR 8.9) demonstrated significant improvement in OS. Conclusions: Patients treated with NEP associated to systemic treatment and with an intermediate/low risk in the Motzer classification had a better PFS and OS. The OS also improves in patients treated with mTOR in second line, and Karnofsky performance status > 80%in the univariate study, but not in the multivariable one

Benefit of on nephrectomy for treating metastatic renal cell carcinoma. / Beneficio de la nefrectomía en el tratamiento del carcinoma de células renales metastásico.

INTRODUCTION: Systemic treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has changed with the new therapies, and it is not clear if nephrectomy (NEP) has a survival benefit in this kind of patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if NEP associated to systemic treatment improves overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective, observational, descriptive study of 45 patients with diagnosis of mRCC between 2006-2014. Advanced cases with only palliative care were excluded, also patients with solitary metastasis who were managed with surgical resection. RESULTS: Finally 34 patients were treated with systemic treatment. Twenty-six also with surgery associated. Seventy percent were intermediate/low risk at the Motzer classification and>80% Karnofsky performance status. PFS was 7m. NEP improves PFS (10 vs. 4m). High risk Motzer decreased PFS (P<.001). The OS was 11.5m. Patients with Karnofsky performance status>80, intermediate or low risk Motzer treated with NEP and mTOR as second line treatment, increased the OS (14 vs. 3m, P=.0001; 14 vs. 6m, P=.001; and 9 vs. 5m, P=.003, respectively). In the multivariate analysis only NEP (P=0,006; HR 4.5) and intermediate/low risk at the Motzer classification(P=.020; HR 8.9) demonstrated significant improvement in OS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with NEP associated to systemic treatment and with an intermediate/low risk in the Motzer classification had a better PFS and OS. The OS also improves in patients treated with mTOR in second line, and Karnofsky performance status>80%in the univariate study, but not in the multivariable one.

[Treatment of pediatric lithiasis in the lithotripsy and endourology unit of "Hospital La Luz". Commented retrospective of our case series]. / Tratamiento de la litiasis en niños durante 30 años en la Unidad de Litotricia y Endourología del "Hospital La Luz". Retrospectiva comentada de nuestra casuística.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present article is to summarize the results we obtained treating children with urolithiasis over the last 30 years and to perform an analysis on the basis of the these results and relevant details according to national and international experience. METHODS: Retrospective and descriptive statistical analysis of the 30 year experience in our clinics. The study was performed with a sample size of 178 children treated with urolithiasis that underwent 221 procedures. These procedures include ESWL, ureterorenoscopy (URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude in this study that ESWL in children was the most appropriate procedure for renal and proximal and middle-third ureteral lithiasis. Kidney stones measuring 2 to 3 cm can be treated without additional procedures or combined approaches. In contrast cystine stones caused the major problems for fragmentation. Moreover, the use of double J catheters increased the need for ESWL when catheter calcification occurred and endoscopic removal was impossible. The benefits of this method must be individually assessed both for the benefit of the temporary placement as well as for the expectation of permanence. We conclude that URS is the best choice for distal-third ureteral lithiasis and some cases of proximal and middle- third ureteral lithiasis. This enables for simultaneous treatments, ureteral dilatation and unexpected diagnoses. In particular, rigid ureteroscopy offers adjuvant options to ESWL with great therapeutic potential and easy handling. In consequence, to our good results and cost-benefit balance using ESWL and rigid URS (even combined), the use of flexible URS for renal lithiasis has been reduced. In general community units like ours, the combined PCNL has been indicated for particular complex cases, and open or laparoscopic surgery was not necessary in any case.