Enterocutaneous fistula as a complication of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with previous bariatric surgery: case report and bibliographic review.

OBJECTIVE: Enterocutaneous fistula is a rare complication after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Some situations are risk factors for it to occur, such as horseshoe kidney, retrorenal colon and chronic colonic dilation by several factors, among them late postoperative time after yeyunoileal bypass in morbid obesity treatment. METHODS: 35-year-old female patient with a 2.5 cm calculus in the right renal pelvis. Late postoperative time after bariatric surgery using duodenal switch technique, and 55 kg lost till present. She undergone percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with two punctures, one in the lower calyx, lost during dilation, and other in the upper calyx through which surgery was successfully carried out. During immediate postoperative time it enteric secretions were observed through the lower chalice puncture. Once the intraperitoneal lesion was removed, decision for conservative treatment was taken with fistula drainage, broadspectrum antibiotic therapy, fasting and total parenteral nutrition. The fistula debt ceased in the 8th postoperative (PO) day, when drain and nephrostomy tube were withdrawn and patient was discharged from the hospital on 10th PO day. On ambulatory follow up the patient is in good conditions. RESULTS: One case of enterocutaneous fistula after PNL presented in a patient in late postoperative time after yeyunoileal bypass. She was successfully treated by conservative therapy. Several authors point to chronic colonic distention and to great loss of retroperitoneal fat as causes for the increase of inadvertent colonic punctures in percutaneous renal access. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of complications with enterocutaneous fistula is significantly higher during the postoperatory in patients of bariatric surgery than in others.

Fever of unknown origin, a rare presentation of metastatic prostate cancer: Case report.

Metastatic prostate cancer can have an initial presentation with fever and systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Accurate diagnosis allows to differentiate this type of cancer from infectious conditions and to start early treatment. We report one case, in which the patient presented to the emergency department with lower urinary tract symptoms, fever and consumptive syndrome. Acute prostatitis was initially suspected, but subsequently prostate adenocarcinoma was diagnosed. This case enables us to consider the possibility of prostate adenocarcinoma as the diagnose in patients with fever of unknown origin, and the role of procalcitonin to rule out the presence of infection.

Holmium Laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP).

OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the effectiveness and applicability of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) - in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) - in comparison to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: patients with symptomatic prostatic hyperplasia and candidates for surgical treatment were selected. Both procedures were explained and they had choosen HoLEP or TURP. At the hospital were collected: age, date of birth, international prostate symptom score, urinary peak flow rate, prostate volume, post-voiding residual urine, globular volume and serum PSA. At the procedure operating time, morcellating time (HoLEP), bladder mucosal injury and intercurrences were collected. At the first postoperative day, globular volume and sodium. Besides that were observed the catheter indwelling time and hospital stay and after 90 days, urinary peak flow rate and international prostate symptom score. Statistical analisys have been done partially by Sinpe(r) and also by a professional team. RESULTS: twenty patients in HoLEP group and 21 at TURP were operated. Baseline urinary peak flow rate was 8 ml/s in both groups and preoperative international prostate symptom score was 22 in HoLEP and 20 in TURP, very similar. Operative time was 85 minutes in HoLEP and 60 in TURP, p<0.05. Hospital stay was 47 hours for HoLEP and 48 hours to TURP, p<0.05. At 90 day the urinary peak flow rate was raised to 21.5 ml/s in HoLEP group and to 20 ml/s in TURP and the median of international prostate symptom score had been reduced to score 3 in both groups. CONCLUSION: HoLEP is a feasible technique and is as effective as TURP on symptomatic prostatic hyperplasia surgical treatment.

The use of double-J catheter decreases complications of retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy in the treatment of ureteral calculi and the need for double-J catheter to reduce the procedure-related complications. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study with 47 patients submitted to retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy, of which 31 were selected and divided into two groups: Group 1, whose patients did not have double-J catheter placement, and Group 2, who underwent perioperative double-J catheter implantation. Data collected comprised pre-and post-operative excretory urography, operative time, postoperative analgesia, length of hospital stay and catheter removal. RESULTS: The groups were similar as for age and gender, degree of dilation of the urinary tract, position and average size of the calculi (Group 1 = 15.5 ± 6.6 mm, Group 2 = 16.3 ± 6.1 mm). Operative time was also not significantly different (Group 1 = 130 ± 40.3 min, Group 2 = 136.3 ± 49.3 min). Group 1 had six patients (37.5%) with early (four cases of urinary fistula) and late complications (one case of stenosis of the ureter, one case of functional exclusion of the operated kidney), while Group 2 had no complications. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: The use of double-J catheter was associated with significantly fewer complications in retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy. Surgical time, postoperative analgesia and length of stay were similar between groups with and without catheter.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) / Enucleação da próstata com holmium laser (HoLEP) versus ressecção transuretral da próstata (RTUP)

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and applicability of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) - in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) - in comparison to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: Patients with symptomatic prostatic hyperplasia and candidates for surgical treatment were selected. Both procedures were explained and they had choosen HoLEP or TURP. At the hospital were collected: age, date of birth, international prostate symptom score, urinary peak flow rate, prostate volume, post-voiding residual urine, globular volume and serum PSA. At the procedure operating time, morcellating time (HoLEP), bladder mucosal injury and intercurrences were collected. At the first postoperative day, globular volume and sodium. Besides that were observed the catheter indwelling time and hospital stay and after 90 days, urinary peak flow rate and international prostate symptom score. Statistical analisys have been done partially by Sinpe(r) and also by a professional team. RESULTS: Twenty patients in HoLEP group and 21 at TURP were operated. Baseline urinary peak flow rate was 8 ml/s in both groups and preoperative international prostate symptom score was 22 in HoLEP and 20 in TURP, very similar. Operative time was 85 minutes in HoLEP and 60 in TURP, p<0.05. Hospital stay was 47 hours for HoLEP and 48 hours to TURP, p<0.05. At 90 day the urinary peak flow rate was raised to 21.5 ml/s in HoLEP group and to 20 ml/s in TURP and the median of international prostate symptom score had been reduced to score 3 in both groups. CONCLUSION: HoLEP is a feasible technique and is as effective as TURP on symptomatic prostatic hyperplasia surgical treatment.

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a eficácia e a aplicabilidade da enucleação prostática com Holmium Laser (HoLEP), no tratamento da hiperplasia prostática benigna (HPB), comparando-a à ressecção transuretral da próstata (RTUp). MÉTODOS: Ambos os procedimentos eram explicados aos pacientes com indicação de tratamento cirúrgico e eles escolhiam qual procedimento seria realizado, HoLEP ou RTUp. Eram coletados dados da internação, dados clínicos, escore de sintomas e pico de fluxo urinário. No ato operatório registravam-se tempo cirúrgico, tempo de morcelamento (nos casos de HoLEP), lesão vesical ou intercorrências. Noventa dias após a operação era feita uma nova avaliação do pico de fluxo urinário e escore de sintomas. A análise estatística foi realizada em parte pelo programa Sinpe(r) e também por uma equipe profissional. RESULTADOS: Foram operados 20 pacientes no grupo HoLEP e 21 no RTUp. O pico de fluxo urinário pré-operatório foi 8ml/s em ambos os grupos. O escore de sintomas pré-operatório foi 22 no grupo HoLEP e 20 no RTUp. O tempo operatório foi 85 minutos no grupo HoLEP e 60 minutos no RTUp, p<0,05. A internação hospitalar foi 47 horas para o grupo de HoLEP e 48 horas para RTUp, p<0,05. Na avaliação em 90 dias o fluxo urinário aumentou para 21,5ml/s no grupo HoLEP e para 20ml/s no RTUp e a mediana do escore de sintomas reduziu para 3 em ambos os grupos.CONCLUSÃO:O HoLEP é técnica tão eficaz quanto RTUp, no tratamento da HPB. A enucleação prostática com Holmium laser (HoLEP) é técnica eficaz no tratamento da HPB e pode ser aplicável, pois produz resultados, em termos de eficácia e aplicabilidade, comparáveis à RTUp.

O emprego do cateter duplo J diminui as complicações na ureterolitotomia retroperitoneoscópica / The use of double-J catheter decreases complications of retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy

OBJETIVO: Avaliar os resultados da ureterolitotomia retroperitoneoscópica no tratamento do cálculo ureteral e a necessidade do cateter duplo J para reduzir complicações relacionadas ao procedimento. MÉTODOS: Estudo retrospectivo comparativo de 47 pacientes operados pela técnica de ureterolitotomia retroperitoneoscópica, dos quais 31 foram selecionados e divididos em dois grupos: Grupo 1, cujos pacientes não receberam cateter duplo J, e Grupo 2, que foram submetidos ao implante de cateter duplo J transoperatório. Foram coletados dados de urografia excretora pré e pós-operatória, tempo cirúrgico, analgesia pós-operatória, tempo de internação e retirada do dreno. RESULTADOS: Os grupos foram semelhantes quando comparados na idade e sexo, grau de dilatação do trato urinário, posição e tamanho médio do cálculo (Grupo 1= 15,5 ± 6,6mm; Grupo 2= 16,3 ± 6,1mm). O tempo operatório também não teve diferença significativa (Grupo 1= 130 ± 40,3min; Grupo 2= 136,3 ± 49,3min). O Grupo 1 apresentou seis pacientes (37,5 %) com complicações precoces (quatro casos de fístula urinária) e tardias (um caso de estenose de ureter, um caso de exclusão funcional do rim operado), enquanto o Grupo 2 não teve complicações, sendo esta diferença estatisticamente significativa (p=0,011). CONCLUSÃO: O emprego do cateter duplo J foi associado a um número significativamente menor de complicações na ureterolitotomia retroperitoneoscópica. Tempo cirúrgico, analgesia pós-operatória e tempo de internação foram semelhantes entre os grupos com e sem cateter.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy in the treatment of ureteral calculi and the need for double-J catheter to reduce the procedure-related complications. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study with 47 patients submitted to retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy, of which 31 were selected and divided into two groups: Group 1, whose patients did not have double-J catheter placement, and Group 2, who underwent perioperative double-J catheter implantation. Data collected comprised pre-and post-operative excretory urography, operative time, postoperative analgesia, length of hospital stay and catheter removal. RESULTS: The groups were similar as for age and gender, degree of dilation of the urinary tract, position and average size of the calculi (Group 1 = 15.5 ± 6.6 mm, Group 2 = 16.3 ± 6.1 mm). Operative time was also not significantly different (Group 1 = 130 ± 40.3 min, Group 2 = 136.3 ± 49.3 min). Group 1 had six patients (37.5%) with early (four cases of urinary fistula) and late complications (one case of stenosis of the ureter, one case of functional exclusion of the operated kidney), while Group 2 had no complications. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: The use of double-J catheter was associated with significantly fewer complications in retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy. Surgical time, postoperative analgesia and length of stay were similar between groups with and without catheter.