What Is Fecal Incontinence That Urologists Need to Know?

Fecal incontinence (FI) undoubtedly reduces quality of life and adversely affects the social life of the affected individual. FI has a higher prevalence with age and has an equivalent prevalence to urinary incontinence in patients with genitourinary disease, but is often not confirmed in these cases. A thorough investigation is needed to diagnose FI, with the common etiology of this condition in mind, and several questionnaires can be used to identify symptoms. The physical examination contains digital rectal examination carries out to identify the patient's condition. Ultrasound, colonoscopy, and rectum pressure test can be performed. Patients educated in diet-related issues, bowel movements, and defecation mechanism. Nonoperative options such as diet control and Kegel exercise should be performed at first. Surgical treatment of FI is considered when conservative management and oral medications produce no improvement. Surgical options include less invasive procedures like bulking agent injections, and more involved approaches from sacral nerve stimulation to invasive direct sphincter repair and artificial bowel sphincter insertion. Good outcomes in FI cases have also recently been reported for barrier devices.

A multicenter prospective study for overactive bladder patient treatment satisfaction with mirabegron after being unsatisfied with antimuscarinic therapy (FAVOR study).

AIM: We investigated the satisfaction and efficacy of mirabegron in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms who were unsatisfied with previous antimuscarinic treatment. METHODS: This was a 12-week, open-label study of adults with OAB who had been treated with antimuscarinics within 2 years of screening and expressed dissatisfaction over poor efficacy or adverse events of antimuscarinics. All enrolled patients have received mirabegron 50 mg once daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients reporting treatment satisfaction questions (TSQ) at week 12 ("very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied"). Patients completed voiding diaries, Overactive Bladder Questionnaire short form (OAB-q-SF), Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS), and the global response assessment (GRA) at baseline, Week 4, and Week 12. At 12-weeks, patients were assessed for willingness to continue treatment. RESULTS: The response rate of treatment satisfaction at 12 weeks was 69.3% (275/397) (95% confidence interval 64.7-73.8). Significant improvements from baseline to weeks 4 and 12 were observed in the frequency, urgency due to urinary incontinence, and urgency episodes per 24 h (all p < .0001). Both OAB-q-SF and OABSS were significantly improved compared to baseline. At 4 and 12 weeks, 27.5% and 41.8% of patients, respectively, responded to the GRA as being moderately or markedly improved. At 12 weeks, 80.8% of patients were willing to continue mirabegron. CONCLUSIONS: Mirabegron improved the rates of treatment satisfaction and symptoms in patients with OAB who were unsatisfied with prior antimuscarinic treatment.

Distribution of ureteral stones and factors affecting their location and expulsion in patients with renal colic.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the distribution of ureteral stones and to determine their characteristics and expulsion rate based on their location. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed computed tomography (CT) findings of 246 patients who visited our Emergency Department (ED) for renal colic caused by unilateral ureteral stones between January 2013 and April 2014. Histograms were constructed to plot the distribution of stones based on initial CT findings. Data from 144 of the 246 patients who underwent medical expulsive therapy (MET) for 2 weeks were analyzed to evaluate the factors responsible for the stone distribution and expulsion. RESULTS: The upper ureter and ureterovesical junction (UVJ) were 2 peak locations at which stones initially lodged. Stones lodged at the upper ureter and ureteropelvic junction (group A) had a larger longitudinal diameter (4.21 mm vs. 3.56 mm, p=0.004) compared to those lodged at the lower ureter and UVJ (group B). The expulsion rate was 75.6% and 94.9% in groups A and B, respectively. There was no significant difference in the time interval from initiation of renal colic to arrival at the ED between groups A and B (p=0.422). Stone diameter was a significant predictor of MET failure (odds ratio [OR], 1.795; p=0.005) but the initial stone location was not (OR, 0.299; p=0.082). CONCLUSIONS: The upper ureter and UVJ are 2 peak sites at which stones lodge. For stone size 10 mm or less, initial stone lodge site is not a significant predictor of MET failure in patients who have no previous history of active stone treatment in the ureter.

Clinical Outcomes of CyberKnife Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer Patients: Short-term, Single-Center Experience.

PURPOSE: In this retrospective study, we analyzed the outcomes of prostate cancer patients treated with the CyberKnife radiotherapy system (Accuray). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2007 and 2010, 31 patients were treated for prostate cancer by use of the CyberKnife radiotherapy system. After excluding six patients who were lost to follow-up, data for the remaining 25 patients were analyzed. Patients were divided into the CyberKnife monotherapy group and a postexternal beam radiotherapy boost group. Clinicopathologic features and treatment outcomes were compared between the groups. The primary endpoint was biochemical recurrence-free survival period based on the Phoenix definition. Toxicities were evaluated by using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scoring criteria. RESULTS: Of 25 patients, 17 (68%) and 8 (32%) were classified in the monotherapy and boost groups, respectively. With a median follow-up of 29.3 months, most of the toxicities were grade 1 or 2 except for one patient in the boost group who experienced late grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity. The overall biochemical recurrence rate was 20% (5/25) and the median time to biochemical recurrence was 51.9 months. None of the patients with low or intermediate risk had experienced biochemical recurrence during follow-up. Among D'Amico high-risk populations, 16.7% (1/6) in the monotherapy group and 50.0% (4/8) in the boost group experienced biochemical recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support that prostate cancer treatment by use of the CyberKnife radiotherapy system is feasible. The procedure can be a viable option for managing prostate cancer either in a monotherapy setting or as a boost after conventional radiotherapy regardless of the patient's risk stratification.

Analyzing the effect of distance from skin to stone by computed tomography scan on the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy stone-free rate of renal stones.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the distance from skin to stone, as measured by computed tomography (CT) scans, could affect the stone-free rate achieved via extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in renal stone patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records 573 patients who had undergone ESWL at our institution between January 2006 and January 2010 for urinary stones sized from about 5 mm to 20 mm and who had no evidence of stone movement. We excluded patients with ureteral catheters and percutaneous nephrostomy patients; ultimately, only 43 patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We classified the success group as those patients whose stones had disappeared on a CT scan or simple X-ray within 6 weeks after ESWL and the failure group as those patients in whom residual stone fragments remained on a CT scan or simple X-ray after 6 weeks. We analyzed the differences between the two groups in age, sex, size of stone, skin-to-stone distance (SSD), stone location, density (Hounsfield unit: HU), voltage (kV), and the number of shocks delivered. RESULTS: The success group included 33 patients and the failure group included 10. In the univariate and multivariate analysis, age, sex, size of stone, stone location, HU, kV and the number of shocks delivered did not differ significantly between the two groups. Only SSD was a factor influencing success: the success group clearly had a shorter SSD (78.25±12.15 mm) than did the failure group (92.03±14.51 mm). The results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed SSD to be the only significant independent predictor of the ESWL stone-free rate. CONCLUSIONS: SSD can be readily measured by CT scan; the ESWL stone-free rate was inversely proportional to SSD in renal stone patients. SSD may therefore be a useful clinical predictive factor of the success of ESWL on renal stones.

Prostate-Specific Antigen Density as a Powerful Predictor of Extracapsular Extension and Positive Surgical Margin in Radical Prostatectomy Patients with Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels of Less than 10 ng/ml.

PURPOSE: To assess the ability of preoperative variables to predict extracapsular extension (ECE) and positive surgical margin (PSM) in radical prostatectomy patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of less than 10 ng/ml. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2009, 121 patients with prostate cancer with PSA levels lower than 10 ng/ml who underwent radical prostatectomy were enrolled in the study. The differences in clinical factors (age, PSA, PSA density [PSAD], digital rectal examination [DRE] positivity, positive magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], Gleason sum, positive core number, and positive biopsy core percentage) with ECE and the presence of positive margins were determined and their independent predictive significances were analyzed. RESULTS: The ECE-positive patients had higher PSA, PSAD, and MRI-positive percentages, and PSM patients had higher PSA, PSAD, MRI-positive percentages, Gleason sum, and positive biopsy core percentages for prostate cancer. In the multivariate analysis, PSAD and MRI positivity were the best independent predictors for ECE, and PSA and PSAD were the best independent predictors of PSM. By receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, PSAD had better discriminative area under the curve value than did PSA for ECE (0.765 vs 0.661) and PSM (0.780 vs 0.624). The best predictive PSAD value was 0.29 ng/ml/cc for ECE and 0.27 ng/ml/cc for PSM. CONCLUSIONS: PSAD has relevance to ECE (plus MRI findings) and PSM (plus PSA). PSAD might be a powerful predictor of ECE and PSM preoperatively in patients undergoing a radical prostatectomy with PSA levels of less than 10 ng/ml.

Analysis of initial baseline clinical parameters and treatment strategy associated with medication failure in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in Korea.

PURPOSE: To analyze the baseline clinical factors and medication treatment strategy used in cases with medication treatment failure of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: From January 2006 to December 2009, 677 BPH patients with at least 3 months of treatment with medication were enrolled. We analyzed clinical factors by medication failure (n=161) versus maintenance (n=516), by prostate size (less than 30 g, n=231; 30 to 50 g, n=244; greater than 50 g, n=202), and by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (less than 1.4 ng/mL, n=324; more than 1.4 ng/mL, n=353). RESULTS: Age, combination medication rate, PSA, and prostate volume were statistically different between the medication treatment failure and maintenance groups. By prostate size, the PSA and medication failure rates were relatively higher and the medication period was shorter in patients with a prostate size of more than 30 g. The combination medication rate was higher in patients with a prostate size of more than 50 g. The medication failure rate and prostate volume were higher in patients with a PSA level of more than 1.4 ng/mL. However, the combination treatment rate was not significantly different in patients with a PSA level lower than 1.4 ng/mL. Suggestive cutoffs for combination medication are a prostate volume of 34 g and PSA level of 1.9 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical factors associated with medication failure were age, treatment type, and prostate volume. Combination therapy should be considered more in Korea in patients with a PSA level higher than 1.4 ng/mL and a prostate volume of between 30 and 50 g to prevent medication failure.