Assuntos
Cálculos Renais/cirurgia , Nefrolitotomia Percutânea/métodos , Punções/instrumentação , Adulto , Perda Sanguínea Cirúrgica/prevenção & controle , Perda Sanguínea Cirúrgica/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Nefrolitotomia Percutânea/efeitos adversos , Nefrolitotomia Percutânea/instrumentação , Nefrolitotomia Percutânea/estatística & dados numéricos , Duração da Cirurgia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Punções/efeitos adversos , Punções/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical value and safety of TRUS-guided transperineal biopsy with the 9 + X method in the diagnosis of prostate carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 420 men underwent TRUS-guided transperineal biopsy with the 9 + X method for suspected prostate carcinoma. Their clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Prostate carcinoma was detected in 160 (38.1%) of the 420 cases, accounting for 7.4%, 17.8% and 65.4% in those with PSA < 4.0 microg/L, 4 -10 microg/L and > 10 microg/L respectively, 25.0% in those with abnormal findings on digital rectal examination (DRE), and 22.2% in those with abnormal echoes on TRUS or abdominal ultrasound examination. Complications after prostatic biopsy included gross hematuria in 79 cases (18.8%), acute urinary retention in 13 (3.1%) and fever in 9 (2.1%), but no other serious complications were observed. CONCLUSION: TRUS-guided transperineal biopsy with the 9 + X method, with high accuracy and fewer complications, is an ideal approach to the diagnosis of prostate carcinoma.
Assuntos
Biópsia por Agulha/métodos , Próstata/patologia , Reto/diagnóstico por imagem , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Períneo , Estudos Retrospectivos , UltrassonografiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To explore the diagnosis and treatment of primary epididymal tumor. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 35 cases of pathologically confirmed primary epididymal tumor. Of the total number of patients, 10 underwent tumor excision, 23 received epididymectomy, 1 was treated by simple orchidoepididymectomy, and by radical orchidoepididymectomy with second-stage retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. RESULTS: Postoperative pathology confirmed 33 cases of benign tumor (including 21 adenomatoid tumor, 7 leiomyoma, 4 fibroma, and 1 papillary cystadenoma), and 2 cases of malignancy (1 malignant fibrous histiocytoma and 1 adenocarcinoma). The follow-up lasted 10 months to 6 years, which revealed no recurrence, metastasis and death. CONCLUSION: Primary epididymal tumor is difficult to be definitely diagnosed preoperatively. Surgical exploration is the first choice for those highly suspected of the disease. Tumor excision or epididymectomy can be considered for benign cases, while radical orchidoepididymectomy with retroperitoneal lymph node dissection is recommended in case of malignancy.
