A review of lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with Parkinson's disease.

To critically review recent literature on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in patients with Parkinson's Disease.A literature search was conducted using the keywords LUTS, urinary symptoms, non-motor, and Parkinson's disease (PD) via the PubMed/Medline search engine. In the literature, we critically examined lower urinary symptoms in Parkinson's patients by analyzing prevalence, pathogenesis, urinary manifestations, pharmacologic trials and interventions, and prior review articles. The data collected ranged from 1986 to the present with an emphasis placed on recent publications.The literature regards LUTS in PD as a major comorbidity, especially with respect to a patient's quality of life. Parkinson's patients experience both storage and voiding difficulties. Storage symptoms, specifically overactive bladder, are markedly worse in patients with PD than in the general population. Surgical management of prostatic obstruction in PD can improve urinary symptoms. Multiple management options exist to alleviate storage LUTS in patients with PD, ranging from behavioral modification to surgery, and vary in efficacy.Lower urinary tract dysfunction in PD may be debilitating. Quality of life can be improved with a multi-pronged diagnosis-specific approach to treatment that takes into consideration a patient's ability to comply with treatment. A stepwise algorithm is presented and may be utilized by clinicians in managing LUTS in Parkinson's patients.

Comparison of manual and computer assisted ultrasonic guidance for transparenchymal percutaneous renal needle placement.

PURPOSE: We evaluated a novel computer based guidance system for deploying needles into the renal parenchyma. We compared it to current standards, including a fixed needle guide and a freehand technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an in vitro comparison followed by a porcine trial. The in vitro model consisted of a bath of ultrasound medium with suspended metallic targets. We compared the number of attempts and the time needed by the novel guide design with and without its software and a support arm vs the freehand approach. In the porcine model we tested the software guide with and without a support arm for targeting a 5 mm lesion embedded in the renal parenchyma. Impressions of difficulty, time, the number of attempts, needle tip visualization and needle tip divergence were documented. RESULTS: Compared to freehand targeting the software guide and support arm decreased the number of targeting attempts in the in vitro model from 4.8 to 1.6 (p <0.001) and decreased the time required from 31.8 to 11.4 seconds (p <0.001). In the porcine study needle tip visualization with the software and support arm received an average score of 1.3 vs 1.8 with the software guide alone (p = 0.04). Tip divergence received a score of 1.4 with the arm and 1.8 without it (p = 0.07). Overall contribution received a score of 1.4 with and without the support arm (p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Computer assisted needle deployment decreased the time and number of attempts required to successfully target simulated parenchymal lesions and also decreased the subjective difficulty inherent in the standard freehand approach.

Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized, prospective study.

PURPOSE: We performed a randomized, prospective, multi-institutional study evaluating the durability of commercially available flexible ureteroscopes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 192 patients were randomized to the use of 7 less than 9Fr flexible ureteroscopes, including the Storz 11274AA and Flex-X, the ACMI DUR-8 and DUR-8 Elite, Wolf models 7330.170 and 7325.172, and the Olympus URF-P3. Information about total and lower pole use time, the number and method of ureteroscope insertion, and they type and duration of accessory instrumentation was recorded. Surgeons were asked to rate the visibility and maneuverability of the instrument on a scale of 0-poor to 10-excellent. RESULTS: The indication for ureteroscopy was upper tract calculi in 87% of cases. Of ureteroscope insertions 97% were performed through an access sheath. The average of number of cases before repair ranged from 3.25 for the Wolf 7325 to 14.4 for the ACMI DUR-8 Elite. Average ureteroscope operative time was statistically longer for the DUR-8 Elite (494 minutes) than for the Flex-X (p = 0.047), and the Wolf 7325 and 7330 (p = 0.001 and 0.001, respectively). Duration of use before repair for the URF-P3 (373 minutes) was statistically longer than for the Wolf 7325 and 7330 (p = 0.016 and 0.017, respectively). Minutes of use with an instrument in the working channel were significantly more with the DUR-8 Elite and the URF-P3 than the Wolf 7330 (p = 0.017 and 0.008) and 7325 (p = 0.012 and 0.005, respectively). The ureteroscope that experienced the greatest average duration of lower pole use was the URF-P3, while the shortest was the Wolf 7325 (103 vs 20 minutes, p = 0.005). Average minutes of laser use before breakage was significantly longer for the DUR-8 Elite than for the Wolf 7325 (110 vs 21 minutes, p = 0.021) and 7330 (24 minutes, p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Currently available less than 9Fr flexible ureteroscopes remain fragile instruments. The DUR-8 Elite and Olympus URF-P3 proved to be the most durable devices.

Minimally invasive therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: practice patterns in Minnesota.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) affects more than 50% of men by the age of 60 and 90% by age 85. Many of these men are not candidates for surgical procedures such as transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), stimulating the development of less-invasive forms of therapy. We studied the utilization of these newer therapies by urologists practicing in Minnesota. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to 174 members of the Minnesota Urological Society, of which 58 were available for analysis. A case scenario was presented of a patient with BPH refractory to medical therapy. The options were traditional and minimally invasive therapies. The physician was asked to select whether he or she would offer each option and perform the procedure or refer the patient within or outside the practice. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square and two-sample t-tests on Minitab software. The results were considered significant at P < 0.05. RESULTS: While 59% of the respondents would offer both minimally invasive and traditional alternatives, 10% would offer only minimally invasive therapy, while 29% would offer only traditional therapy (P = 0.01). The most common minimally invasive therapies offered were transurethral microwave thermotherapy and (55%) and transurethral needle ablation (33%). If they offered a form of minimally invasive therapy, the majority of respondents would perform the procedure themselves. Rural urologists were less likely to offer minimally invasive therapy (43%) than metro physicians (81%; P = 0.035). There was no significant difference in the use of minimally invasive therapies by rural and urban urologists (P = 0.409) or urban and metropolitan urologists (P = 0.119). Urologists completing their training between 1960 and 1980 were less likely to offer minimally invasive therapy. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of offering traditional versus minimally invasive alternatives according to the percent of managed care in the practice. CONCLUSIONS: Urologists closer to the completion of their residency training are more likely to include a minimally invasive technique in their treatment plan, while urologists practicing in rural Minnesota are less likely to offer minimally invasive procedures. Further emphasis should be placed on increasing the availability of minimally invasive techniques in rural settings.

Contemporary management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: practice patterns in Minnesota.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction can be addressed surgically by an open, laparoscopic, endoscopic, or fluoroscopic procedure. Our objective was to establish what surgical alternatives are currently offered by urologists in Minnesota. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 174 members of the Minnesota Urological Society. Practice settings were characterized as rural, urban, or metropolitan on the basis of the ZIP-code classifications of the Minnesota Ambulance Association and state geographic legislation. Respondents were asked to select initial treatment options for an adult patient with flank pain, decreased renal function, and hydronephrosis secondary to UPJ obstruction. RESULTS: Whereas 60% of the respondents would offer open pyeloplasty, only 12% would offer it as the only treatment option. The two most common minimally invasive therapies offered were the Acucise balloon (48%) and percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy (48%). Rural urologists were more likely to offer Acucise balloon incision (71%) than were urban (28%; P=0.045) or metropolitan (55%; P=0.412) urologists. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of urologists still offer open pyeloplasty as first-line therapy for UPJ obstruction. Further emphasis should be placed on increasing the availability of endoscopic and laparoscopic procedures.

Nephrolithiasis: "scope," shock or scalpel?

PURPOSE: To evaluate treatment preferences for complex urinary calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 174 members of the Minnesota Urological Society. Three case scenarios were presented: a 1.5-cm lower-pole calculus with unfavorable anatomy, a 1.4-cm proximalureteral calculus, and a staghorn calculus. The treatment options offered were extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteral stenting, ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and open surgery. RESULTS: Our survey response rate was 49%. A PCNL for staghorn calculi was more likely to be offered by urologists in metropolitan (100%; P<0.001) and urban (100%; P=0.003) settings than rural settings (57%). Whereas only 22% of urban and metropolitan urologists would offer anatrophic nephrolithotomy, 43% of rural urologists would include this among their treatment options. A PCNL was more likely to be offered by urologists trained after 1980 (100%) than by urologists trained before 1980 (81%; P=0.004). For a large lower-pole calculus with unfavorable anatomy, urologists with >50% managed-care practices were more likely (91%) than urologists with <50% managed-care practices (65%) to select PCNL for such stones (P=0.034). Whereas 82% of metropolitan urologists would select PCNL, 43% of rural urologists would consider SWL as initial therapy. A URS was more likely to be offered by urologists trained after 1980 (16%) than by urologists trained before 1980 (0; P=0.044). For a large proximal-ureteral calculus, metropolitan urologists were most likely (64%) to use stents initially (urban 28%; P=0.014; rural 14%; P=0.017). Rural urologists were more likely to offer SWL (100%) than were metro urologists (55%; P=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Initial therapy for nephrolithiasis differs significantly according to geographic location, year of residency completion, and the percentage of managed-care patients in a urologist's practice. Future emphasis should be placed on increasing the availability of endoscopic techniques in rural settings.

A novel dual-diameter ureteroscope working channel: impact on irrigant flow.

OBJECTIVES: To compare irrigant flow characteristics through standard working channels (3.6F to 4.5F) and a dual-diameter working channel. Irrigant flow is critical for adequate visualization during endoscopic procedures. METHODS: Working channels were created out of 80 cm of light wall polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tubing (inner diameter 3.6F, 4.0F, and 4.5F) with a male Luer connector attached to one end by epoxy resin. The dual-diameter working channel was created with a 70-cm segment of PTFE (4.5F inner diameter, 0.059 in.) and a 10-cm segment of PTFE (3.6F inner diameter, 0.047 in.) with a male Luer connector attached to the free end of the 4.5F tubing. Stone basket shafts (100 cm in length, outer diameter 1.9F, 2.4F, and 3.0F) were created out of unmodified polyimide tubing with a 0.018-in.-diameter nitinol mandrel epoxy core for stability. Irrigant flow was measured at 100 mm Hg pressure for 1 minute with an empty channel and with stone basket shafts in the channel. RESULTS: The flow rates were significantly greater with the dual-diameter working channel than with the standard flexible ureteroscope (3.6F) working channel using an empty channel (79.2 versus 44.1 mL/min, P = 0.0001), 1.9F basket (35.9 versus 10.0 mL/min, P = 0.003), 2.4F basket (20.7 versus 4.3 mL/min, P = 0.002), and 3.0F basket (6.0 versus 0.7 mL/min, P = 0.0002) sheath. CONCLUSIONS: A dual-diameter working channel may optimize irrigant flow characteristics for flexible ureteroscopes while maintaining a small distal tip diameter.

Comparison of nitinol tipless stone baskets in an in vitro caliceal model.

PURPOSE: Tipless stone baskets facilitate caliceal calculi extraction during flexible ureteroscopy. We evaluated the stone capture rate of 9 commercially available tipless stone baskets in an in vitro model using novice and expert operators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Microvasive Zerotip (2.4Fr, 3.0Fr), Cook N-Circle (2.2Fr, 3.0Fr, 3.2Fr), Bard Dimension (3.0Fr, Sacred Heart Medical Halo (1.9Fr), Vantage (1.9Fr) and Circon-ACMI Sur-Catch-NT (3.0Fr) were tested by 3 novice and 3 experienced basket operators. Each operator performed stone extraction of 2, 5 and 8 mm calculi (size determined by digital caliper with 3 repetitions of each basket. The time to extraction of the calculus from a convex based test tube caliceal model was recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using repeated measures ANOVA and Fisher's pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: After a learning curve of 27 basket retrievals, there was no significant difference in stone capture times between novice (38 +/- 54 seconds) and expert operators (32 +/- 49 seconds, p = 0.174). For total stone capture (all sizes) the Sacred Heart Halo resulted in the most rapid stone extraction (17 +/- 14 seconds) by novices and experts, while the Sur-Catch NT resulted in the slowest stone extraction (78 +/- 90, seconds, p = 0.001). The Halo (14 +/- 9 seconds) and Vantage (19 +/- 12 seconds) baskets were significantly faster for 2 mm calculi than the N-Circle (73 +/- 60 seconds, p = 0.006), Sur-Catch (169 +/- 85 seconds, p = 0.0005) and Dimension (73 +/- 70 seconds, p = 0.017). The Zerotip functioned well for 2 mm calculi in the hands of expert operators (15 +/- 9 seconds) but not novice operators (94 +/- 95 seconds). The Sur-Catch NT was significantly slower for 2 mm calculi than the N-Circle (p = 0.01), Dimension (p =.03), Halo (p =.0005), Vantage (p =.001) and Zerotip (p =.002). For 5 mm calculi the Halo was superior (12 +/- 8 seconds), while the Zerotip were superior for 8 mm calculi (8 +/- 3 seconds) compared to the N-Circle (23 +/- 28 seconds, p = 0.026), Halo (26 +/- 18 seconds, p = 0.021) and Vantage (23 +/- 15 seconds, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The Sacred Heart Halo and Vantage baskets resulted in the most expeditious stone extraction, especially for 2 to 5 mm calculi while the Microvasive Zerotip was optimal for 8 mm calculi. The Sur-Catch NT had the slowest stone capture rate for all stone sizes. Caliceal models of stone basketing may be useful to train novice urology residents and nursing assistants.

Minimally invasive therapy for renal cell carcinoma: is there a new community standard?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate current practice use of laparoscopic and minimally invasive therapies in the treatment of renal cell cancer. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 174 members of the Minnesota Urological Society. The first case scenario described a 6-cm lesion not amenable to nephron-sparing surgery. The second case scenario described a 3-cm lower pole exophytic mass amenable to nephron-sparing surgery. The treatment options included traditional therapy (open partial or radical nephrectomy) and minimally invasive therapy (laparoscopic radical or partial nephrectomy or renal cryoablation). RESULTS: Our survey response rate was 49%. For the first scenario, 86% of respondents would offer open radical nephrectomy; however, 57% would offer laparoscopic surgery. Of those urologists offering laparoscopic surgery, 14% would refer outside their practice and 43% would use a hand-assisted approach. Sixty-four percent of the metropolitan and 56% of the urban respondents would offer a form of minimally invasive therapy; only 29% of rural respondents offered these options. For the second scenario, 90% of respondents would offer open partial nephrectomy and 45% a minimally invasive therapy; however, 24% of these would refer outside their practice. Thirty-eight percent of respondents would offer laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and 22% of respondents would offer renal cryoablation. Urologists completing residency after 1990 were more likely to offer a minimally invasive option (65%) compared with urologists completing residency before 1990 (31%). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive therapy for renal cell cancer is evolving into a community standard of care, with urologists relying heavily on outside referrals to access minimally invasive alternatives. Younger urologists living in metropolitan and urban areas are more likely to offer minimally invasive therapy. Additional emphasis should be placed on increasing the availability of minimally invasive techniques in rural settings.