Minimally invasive treatment of renal transplant nephrolithiasis.

PURPOSE: Urolithiasis is a rare complication of renal transplantation, and there is limited evidence to guide treatment. Management of stones in the transplanted kidney can be challenging. We present our experience in treating upper urinary tract (UUT) allograft lithiasis using minimally invasive procedures, with the aim of demonstrating their efficacy and safety in renal transplant recipients. METHODS: The records of 1615 patients undergoing kidney transplantation and follow-up in our center between August 2000 and July 2014 were reviewed. The mode of presentation, donor type, onset time, immunosuppression protocol, stone character, therapeutic intervention and outcomes of those with UUT allograft lithiasis were recorded. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) were used in the management of these calculi. Stone composition was analyzed after the procedure. RESULTS: Nineteen renal transplant recipients (1.2 %, nine males and ten females) were found to have UUT allograft calculi. Of these, five underwent SWL (26.3 %), four had F-URS combined with lithotomy forceps extraction or holmium laser disruption (21.1 %), six had PNCL (31.6 %), one submitted to F-URS after two failed sessions of SWL (5.3 %), one combined PCNL and F-URS (5.3 %), and two spontaneously of stones (10.5 %). All patients were rendered stone-free with a combination of treatments, and none required a blood transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of calculi in the transplanted kidney is low. Minimally invasive procedures are safe and effective means of removing allograft calculi.

Efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in treating neurogenic detrusor overactivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: OnabotulinumtoxinA is widely used in treating neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO). We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the drug for treating NDO. METHODS: We searched the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. All published randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of NDO were identified in the analysis. The reference lists of the retrieved studies were also investigated. RESULTS: Four publications involving a total of 807 patients were identified in the analysis, which compared onabotulinumtoxinA with placebo. The changes of the mean number of urinary incontinence per week (the standardized mean difference [SMD] = -10.91, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] = -14.18--7.63, P < 0.0001); maximum cystometric capacity (SMD = 146.09, 95% CI = 126.19-165.99, P < 0.0001) and maximum detrusor pressure (SMD = -32.65, 95% CI = -37.83--27.48, P < 0.0001) indicated that onabotulinumtoxinA was more effective than the placebo, despite the doses of onabotulinumtoxinA. Safety assessments primarily localized to the urinary tract indicated onabotulinumtoxinA were often associated with more complications. Urinary tract infections (relative risk [RR] =1.48, 95% CI = 1.20-1.81, P = 0.0002); hematuria (RR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.00-3.24, P = 0.05) and urinary retention (RR = 5.87, 95% CI = 3.61-9.56, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicates that onabotulinumtoxinA to be an effective treatment for NDO with side effects primarily localized to urinary tract.

Avanafil for male erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Avanafil, a potent new selective phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor, has been developed for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of this drug for the treatment of ED. A literature review was performed to identify all published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of avanafil for the treatment of ED. The search included the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. The reference lists of the retrieved studies were also investigated. Four publications, involving a total of 1381 patients, were used in the analysis, including four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared avanafil with a placebo. Among the co-primary efficacy end points indicating that avanafil 100 mg was more effective than a placebo were successful vaginal penetration (SEP2) (the odds ratio (OR) =5.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) =3.29-7.78, P< 0.00001) and successful intercourse (SEP3) (OR = 3.99, 95% CI = 2.80-5.67, P< 0.00001). Men randomized to receive avanafil were less likely than those receiving the placebo to drop out due to an adverse event (AE) (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 0.54-4.08, P= 0.44). Specific AEs with avanafil included headache and flushing, which were significantly less likely to occur with placebo. This meta-analysis indicates that avanafil 100 or 200 mg is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for ED. Compared with avanafil 100 mg, patients who take avanafil 200 mg are more likely to experience headaches.