Rare Causes of Hydronephrosis in Adults and Diagnosis Algorithm: Analysis of 100 Cases During 15 Years.

Introduction Hydronephrosis (HN) is a common pathology that is with/without obstruction. HN should be promptly addressed; otherwise, it progresses to cause impaired kidney function. This study was conducted to define the diagnosis algorithm and poor prognostic parameters used to evaluate unknown HN. Materials and Methods This study enrolled 100 patients who were over 20 years of age and were admitted to the center between 2001 and 2015 for the diagnosis and treatment of HN. Although initial diagnostic tests were applied, the HN etiology of the patients could not be found in ambulatory conditions; therefore, they were hospitalized to seek the causes for their HN. Patients who had a malignancy or tuberculosis or any previous ureteral injury were excluded. Results Of these cases, 29 were on both sides, whereas 42 were on the left side. Despite further investigations, the etiology was not determined in five patients. The frequency of malignancy in patients with hematuria (5/15) was two times higher than in patients without hematuria (33% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.01). Additionally, the malignancy rate was significantly higher in patients with weight loss (100%) than those without weight loss (OR: 6.25; p < 0.001). Conclusions Further investigation is recommended to define the precise etiology of HN. Hematuria and weight loss should be considered poor predictive factors during diagnosis.

Lower urinary tract dysfunction in pediatric patients after ureteroneocystostomy due to vesicoureteral reflux: Long-term follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate long-term lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD) in pediatric patients who underwent ureteroneocystostomy due to vesicoureteral reflux. METHODS: The present retrospective study was performed on 61 patients. Patients were divided into 3 groups: Group 1 (n = 26), did not have LUTD; Group 2 (n = 23), had LUTD; and Group 3 (n = 12), was not toilet trained preoperatively. Patients were reassessed regarding de novo LUTD or the persistence of LUTD at least 7 years after the ureteroneocystostomy. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 7 years (range 1-15) when ureteroneocystostomy was performed and the surgery was associated with a 92% success rate. The mean follow-up period was 10 years (range 7-12 years). Postoperative LUTD was present in 6 (23%), 12 (52%), and 1 (8.3%) patients in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The presence of LUTD before surgery and bilateral repair in the same setting were predictive risk factors for the presence of LUTD during the long-term follow-up. LUTD occurred at higher rate in Group 2 than in Groups 1 and 3 (52% vs. 23% and 8.3%, respectively; P = .015). The presence of de novo LUTD was significant in Group 1 compared with the presence of preoperative and postoperative LUTD (P = .031, Wilcoxon analysis). CONCLUSIONS: LUTD may not resolve after a ureteroneocystostomy, and additional therapy could be necessary. Due to the probability of damage to the ureterovesical nerve and/or disturbed bladder dynamics, de novo LUTD may occur in patients with bilateral high-grade reflux without LUTD before a ureteroneocystostomy.

The importance of active surveillance, and immediate re-biopsy in low-risk prostate cancer: The largest series from Turkey.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term outcomes of active surveillance (AS) applied in low-risk prostate cancer patients, and the impact of re-biopsy results on the prediction of progression. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In our clinic, patients who had undergone AS for low-risk localized prostate cancer between the years 2005-2013 were included in the study. Our AS criteria are Gleason score ≤6, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level <10 ng/mL, number of positive cores <3, maximum cancer involvement ratio <50% each core. Immediate re-biopsy (within 3 months) was performed to 65 patients who accepted AS. Finally, 43 patients who met re-biopsy criteria were included in the study. Prostate biopsy specimens were harvested from 12 cores under the guidance of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Re-biopsy was performed within 3 months (1-12 weeks). In re-biopsy, a total of 20 core biopsies were performed including the far lateral (6 cores) and transition zone (2 cores) in addition to standard 12 core biopsy. Our follow-up protocol is PSA measurement and digital rectal examination (DRE) every 3 months within the first 2 years, than every 6 months. Control biopsies was performed one year later and once upon every 3 years to patients whose PSA levels and DREs were normal at follow-up visits. More than 2 tumor invaded cores or 50% tumor in one core, and Gleason score exceeding 6 points were accepted as indications for definitive treatment. Patients were divided into two groups by re-biopsy results and compared according to the time to progression. We have done multivariate regression analysis to predict prognosis by using data on age, PSA level, and detection of tumor in re-biopsy specimens. RESULTS: Patients' median age was 61 years and PSA level was 5 (2.7-9) ng/mL. Tumor was detected in 22 (34%) patients at re-biopsy and they underwent definitive treatment. Additionally tumor was detected in 9 patients, but active surveillance was maintained because their pathologic results met active surveillance criteria. Median follow time was 42 (24-117) months. Definitive treatment was performed in 9 (21%) patients. PSA recurrence was not detected in none of 9 patients during 38 months of follow up. Only the presence of tumor in re-biopsy specimens was found predictor of disease progression in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: We think that AS is safe method for low-risk localized prostate cancer patients, if it is performed in compliance with certain criteria and regular follow up, and early re-biopsy can be useful either during early period or long term follow-up.

Which treatment method should be used in pregnant patients with ureteral calculi? Two center comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare ureterolithotripsy and inserting only ureteral-j stent in terms of efficiency, safety and patient comfort in treatment of ureteral calculi in pregnant patients. METHODS: Seventy patients who developed hydronephrosis due to ureteral calculi during pregnancy, and on whom endoscopic intervention was performed were included in the study. In a center, the stones were broken up by ureteroscopy, and then ureteral stents (JJ) were placed if needed. In the other center, nothing was performed on the stones, and only ureteral stents (JJ) was placed. For the statistical analysis, Pearson's chi squared test and the Mann-Whitney U tests were used and the significance level was determined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: The average age of the patients was 26.2 years (18-39) and the average gestational week was 23.4 weeks (8-36). While no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the frequency of complications (p=0.381) and post-operative pyelonephritis (p=0.2), the need for additional intervention in the group on whom ureteroscopy was performed was found to be less (9.7% vs. 31%; p=0.032). Moderate or severe LUTS or flank pain during the period between the procedure and the birth was found to be significantly less in the group in which ureterolithotripsy was performed (14% vs. 55%; p=0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Ureterolithotripsy is a safe and more comfortable procedure than only ureteral double-j insertion on pregnant patients with ureterolithiasis.

Which treatment method should be used in pregnant patients with ureteral calculi? Two center comparative study / ¿Qué tratamiento debemos utilizar en embarazadas con cálculos ureterales? Estudio en dos centros

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare ureterolithotripsy and inserting only ureteral-j stent in terms of efficiency, safety and patient comfort in treatment of ureteral calculi in pregnant patients. Methocs: Seventy patients who developed hydronephrosis due to ureteral calculi during pregnancy, and on whom endoscopic intervention was performed were included in the study. In a center, the stones were broken up by ureteroscopy, and then ureteral stents (JJ) were placed if needed. In the other center, nothing was performed on the stones, and only ureteral stents (JJ) was placed. For the statistical analysis, Pearson's chisquared test and the Mann-Whitney U tests were used and the significance level was determined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: The average age of the patients was 26.2 years (18-39) and the average gestational week was 23.4 weeks (8-36). While no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the frequency of complications (p = 0.381) and post-operative pyelonephritis (p = 0.2), the need for additional intervention in the group on whom ureteroscopy was performed was found to be less (9.7% vs. 31%; p = 0.032). Moderate or severe LUTS or flank pain during the period between the procedure and the birth was found to be significantly less in the group in which ureterolithotripsy was performed (14% vs. 55%; p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Ureterolithotripsy is a safe and more comfortable procedure than only ureteral double-j insertion on pregnant patients with ureterolithiasis

OBJETIVOS: El objetivo del estudio es comparar la ureteroscopia con litotricia in situ y la inserción aislada de catéter doble J en el tratamiento de la litiasis ureteral en pacientes embarazadas, en términos de eficiencia, seguridad y confort del paciente. MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron en el estudio 70 pacientes que desarrollaron hidronefrosis por cálculos ureterales durante el embarazo, en las que se realizó una intervención endoscópica. En un centro las piedras fueron rotas por ureteroscopia con inserción posterior de stents ureterales si era necesario. En el otro centro, no se hacía nada sobre la litiasis y sólo se colocaban Catéteres doble J. El análisis estadístico se realizó mediante los tests de Chi cuadrado de Pearson y U de Mann-Whitney con un nivel de significación estadística determinado como p < 0,05. RESULTADOS: La edad media de las pacientes era 26,2 años (18-39) y la media de semanas de gestación 23,4 (8-36). Aunque no se encontraron diferencias significativas entre los dos grupos en cuanto a la frecuencia de complicaciones (p = 0,381) y pielonefritis postoperatoria (p = 0,2), la necesidad de intervenciones adicionales fue menor en el grupo en el que se realizó ureteroscopia (9,7 vs. 31%; p = 0,032). Se vio que la presencia de síntomas del tracto urinario inferior moderados o severos, o dolor lumbar, durante el periodo entre el procedimiento y el parto fue significativamente menor en el grupo de ureteroscopia (14% vs 55%; p = 0,036). CONCLUSIONES: En pacientes embarazadas con litiasis ureteral la ureteroscopia con litotricia in situ es un procedimiento seguro y más confortable que la colocación de un doble J sólo

Comparison of laparoscopic and open ureterolithotomy in impacted and very large ureteral stones.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of laparoscopic and open ureterolithotomy in patients with ureteral stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who had undergone open or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy between 2001 and 2013 in our clinic were enrolled in the study.Ureterolithotomy was performed due to the following reasons: failure to position the patient for ureteroscopy, unreachable stone with ureteroscopy also use of balloon dilatation, high stone volume, and the need for removal of kidney stones at the same session.. The patients' demographic data, the volume of the stones, the duration of the operation and the hospital stay, the amount of analgesics administered after the operation, and the need for another procedure were compared. RESULTS: Of study subjects 32 patients had undergone open and 20 patients had undergone laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. When the two groups were compared, there was no statistically significant difference with regard to the mean age (44.5-44 years), the body mass index (26-24.7 kg/m²), the stone volume (420-580 mm³), the duration of operation (122-123 min), the need for another procedure and complications. The mean amount of analgesics administered after the operation (3.6 and 1.81 doses, P = .02) and the mean hospital stay (6.1 and 2.9 days, P = .01) were significantly lower in the laparoscopic ureterolithotomy group. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy is a good alternative with less need for analgesia and a shorter hospital stay when compared with open ureterolithotomy.