A rare entity in adults: Bilateral Hutch diverticulum with calculi.

Congenital bladder diverticulum (CBD) is a very uncommon entity in adults. CBD could be unilateral or bilateral and is caused by a congenital weakness in the bladder musculature. CBD is differentiated from the paraureteral or Hutch type of diverticula. A 42-year-old male presented with bilateral Hutch diverticulum and multiple diverticulum calculus on intravenous pyelography. Cystoscopy revealed bladder diverticulum just medial to the left ureteral orifice with multiple calculi; the patient successfully underwent endoscopic laser cystolithotripsy with resolution of his urinary tract infection. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report presenting stone formation of CBD in an adult.

What is the best option for 10-20mm renal pelvic stones undergoing ESWL in the pediatric population: stenting, alpha blockers or conservative follow-up?

OBJECTIVE: In this study we aimed to identify the effect of three different modalities (stenting, doxazosin and conservative follow-up) on stone free rates and complication rates for 10-20mm renal pelvic stones in pediatric patients who underwent shock wave lithotripsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study data from 241 renal units (RUs) of 195 consecutive patients with 10-20mm renal pelvis stones were analyzed retrospectively. There were 3 groups in the study; 56 (23.2%) RUs with ureteral stenting were categorized as group 1, and 39 (16.2%) RUs that received doxazosin were categorized as group 2. The remaining 146 (60.6%) RUs without history of ureteral stenting or alpha-blockers usage were categorized as group 3. Patient demographics, stone characteristics, stone free rates (SFRs), time to stone expulsion and complications were documented and compared in each group. RESULTS: Mean age of the population was 6.6 years and mean stone size was 13.8 ± 2.9 mm. Demographic characteristics of the 3 groups were not significantly different. SFRs of the three groups were 89.2%, 87.1% and 82.1% (p = 0.275). Mean time to stone expulsion for groups 1 and 2 were 17.4 and 21.8 days respectively and significantly lower than that in group 3 (31.3 days). CONCLUSIONS: Ureteral stenting or doxazosin for shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is not superior to watchful waiting in terms of SFR and complications however both modalities shorten the stone expulsion time for 10-20mm renal pelvis stones in the pediatric population.

Clinical comparision of intravesical hyaluronic acid and hyaluronic acid-chondroitin sulphate therapy for patients with bladder pain syndrome/interstitital cystitis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with a history of bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC) and who responded poorly or unsatisfactorily with previous treatment were compared taking intravesical hyaluronic acid (HA) or hyaluronic acid-chondroitin sulphate (HA-CS). METHODS: Patients were treated with intravesical instillation with 50 mL sterile sodium hyalurinic acid (Hyacyst, Syner-Med, Surrey, UK) (n = 32) and sodium hyaluronate 1.6% sodium chondroitin sulphate 2% (Ialuril, Aspire Pharma, UK) (n = 33). Intravesical instillations were performed weekly in first month, every 15 days in the second month and monthly in third and fourth months, for a total of 8 doses. Patients were evaluated using a visual analog pain scale (VAS), interstitial cystitis symptom index (ICSI), interstitial cystitis problem index (ICPI), voiding diary for frequency/nocturia, cystometric bladder capacity and voided volume at the beginning and at 6 months. All patients had a potassium sensitivity test (PST) initially. Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: In total, 53 patients met the study criteria. There were 30 patients in the HA-CS group (mean age: 48.47) and 23 patients in the HA group (mean age: 49.61) (p > 0.05). The initial PST was positive in 71.7% patients (38/53) overall with no difference between groups (p > 0.05). Responses for VAS, ICCS, ICPS, 24-hour frequency/nocturia statistically improved in both groups at 6 months. There was no significant difference in symptomatic improvement (p > 0.05). Eight patients had mild adverse events. CONCLUSION: HA and HA/CS instillation can be effective in BPS/IC patients who do not respond to conservative treatment. An important limitation of our study is that the HA dosage of the 2 treatment arms were different. It would be more appropriate with same HA dosage in both groups; however, there was no commercially available glycosaminoglycan (GAG) substance with same HA dosage for single and combination therapy. Large, long-term randomized studies are required to determine if there is a difference between these treatments.

How significant is upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology while discussing less invasive treatment options?

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the oncological outcomes of patients experiencing an upgrade from their initial biopsy pathology, and to determine whether these tumours have characteristics resembling their initial biopsy Gleason score (GS) or final radical prostatectomy (RP) GS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data on 632 patients undergoing open retropubic RP between January 1994 and May 2011 at Ankara University were investigated retrospectively. Data included age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA), clinical stage, biopsy GS, prostate volume, RP specimen GS, surgical margin positivity, pathological T stage and biochemical recurrence. Biochemical recurrence of GS concordant and upgraded tumours was compared. RESULTS: GS concordance was found in 378 cases (59.8%) and GS upgrading was observed in 183 patients (28.9%). GS upgraded tumours were found to have higher biochemical recurrence rates than their corresponding concomitant GS group. Multivariate analysis revealed that serum PSA level, pathological T stage and GS upgrading were independent prognostic factors for biochemical recurrence. Age and prostate volume were not found to be independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: Upgrade in biopsy GS is a predictor for aggressive tumours with a higher risk for biochemical recurrence than concordant tumours. It may be observed in about a quarter of patients. As it was not possible to identify correctly those patients who may experience an upgrade in GS, patients who are candidates for less invasive treatment options must be informed about the risk of upgrading and the possibility of a worse clinical course.

How to write a review article?

In the medical sciences, the importance of review articles is rising. When clinicians want to update their knowledge and generate guidelines about a topic, they frequently use reviews as a starting point. The value of a review is associated with what has been done, what has been found and how these findings are presented. Before asking 'how,' the question of 'why' is more important when starting to write a review. The main and fundamental purpose of writing a review is to create a readable synthesis of the best resources available in the literature for an important research question or a current area of research. Although the idea of writing a review is attractive, it is important to spend time identifying the important questions. Good review methods are critical because they provide an unbiased point of view for the reader regarding the current literature. There is a consensus that a review should be written in a systematic fashion, a notion that is usually followed. In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described. A 'methodological filter' is the best method for identifying the best working style for a research question, and this method reduces the workload when surveying the literature. An essential part of the review process is differentiating good research from bad and leaning on the results of the better studies. The ideal way to synthesize studies is to perform a meta-analysis. In conclusion, when writing a review, it is best to clearly focus on fixed ideas, to use a procedural and critical approach to the literature and to express your findings in an attractive way.