A Rare Cause of Massive Hematuria: Placenta Percreta With Bladder Invasion.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Placenta percreta is a rare event, but it poses serious problems due to potential hemorrhagic events. We report a particular case of placenta percreta with massive hematuria due to maternal bladder invasion, and describe the surgical protocol performed that resulted in an excellent outcome. CASE REPORT: A 33-year-old patient, at 27th weeks gestational age, presented in the emergency room of the Urology Department with urinary blood clot acute retention, because of massive hematuria from a placenta percreta with bladder invasion. After extracting the clots from the bladder, and coagulation of an area of venous ectasies of the posterior wall, hematuria ceased, but appeared after two days, necessitating again the bladder clots removal and coagulation. A surgical team with gynecologists, urologists, anesthesiologists and a neonatologist was composed, and after bilateral ureteral double J insertion, cesarean section was performed followed by hemostatic hysterectomy and partial cystectomy, bilateral internal iliac artery ligature and repair of the bladder wall. The postoperative evolution was without incidents; the Foley catheter was removed in the 14th postoperative day. CONCLUSION: In the context of a massive hematuria of a pregnant woman, the urologist must always consider a diagnosis of complicated placenta percreta.

Does silodosin offer better results than tamsulosin as medical expulsive treatment after shock wave lithotripsy for single distal ureteric stones?

INTRODUCTION: Different antagonists of αadrenergic receptors (α-blockers) have been used as medical expulsive treatment (MET) after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). AIM: To retrospectively evaluate the expulsion rate of fragments after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy performed for single ureteral stones followed by different medical expulsive treatments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed stone expulsion rates of 190 patients treated by shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for single, 5 to 10 mm, symptomatic and uncomplicated distal ureteric stones, treated with tamsulosin 0.4 mg, silodosin 8 mg or silodosin 4 mg as MET. Beside the stone-free rate after 4 weeks of treatment, we also investigated the pain intensity using the visual analogue scale (VAS), adverse events induced by the medication, safety of drug administration and the reasons for possible early treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: Silodosin 8 mg and tamsulosin 0.4 mg have similar results in terms of stone-free rate. For silodosin 4 mg the stone-free rate was significantly lower than for the previous two drugs. In patients treated with silodosin 4 mg the VAS was significantly higher than in patients treated with silodosin 8 mg or tamsulosin 0.4 mg, for all the follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: Alpha-blocker treatment after ESWL with silodosin 8 mg offers a similar stone-free rate compared with tamsulosin 0.4 mg, being well tolerated. A lower dose of silodosin (4 mg) has significantly poor results, irrespective of ureteric stone size, with more frequent renal colic and severe pain.