Quiste intrabdominal y retención crónica de orina / Abdominal cyst and chronic urinary retention

No disponible

The impact of prostate gland dimension in genitourinary toxicity after definitive prostate cancer treatment with moderate hypofractionation and volumetric modulated arc radiation therapy

Purpose: To analyze clinical-dosimetric predictors of genitourinary (GU) toxicity in a cohort of prostate cancer (PC) patients treated with moderate hypofractionation and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique. Materials and methods: 60 patients were selected. Patients were stratified into low (43 %), intermediate (30 %) and high-risk (27 %) groups. Low-risk patients received 73.5 Gy to PTV1; intermediate-risk received 73.5 Gy to PTV1 and 60 Gy to PTV2; high-risk received 73.5 Gy to PTV1, 60 Gy to PTV2, and 54 Gy to PTV3. All patients were treated in 30 fractions. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was prescribed upfront in intermediate and high-risk categories. Toxicity was scored according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 scoring system. Results: Median follow-up was 30 months (range 16-36 months). GU acute toxicity was recorded as followS: G0 = 16/60 (27 %), G1 = 18/60 (30 %); G2 = 26/ 60 (43 %). GU late toxicity was recorded as follows: G0 = 20/60 (34 %); G1 = 29/60 (48 %); G2 = 11/56 (18 %). The risk of acute G2 GU toxicity was three times higher for prostate volume C80 cc. In 60 % of the patients with a prostate volume C80 cc, the first 3 weeks are at particular risk for toxicity onset. In the late setting, no statistical significance was found between GU toxicity and prostate gland dimension. Conclusion: Prostate volume C80 cc resulted a predictive factor of acute G2 GU toxicity, in moderate hypofractionation and volumetric modulated arc radiation therapy for definitive PC (AU)

No disponible

Experiencia clínica en el manejo de fracturas de pene en el Hospital Universitario del Valle (Cali-Colombia) / Clinical experience in the management of penile fracture at Hospital Universitario del Valle (Cali-Colombia)

OBJETIVO: El objetivo principal del presente estudio fue describir las características clínicas de los pacientes con diagnóstico de fractura de pene en el Hospital Universitario del Valle (Cali, Colombia).MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio descriptivo, en el que se revisaron todas las historias clínicas de los pacientes con diagnóstico de fractura de pene entre enero de 2001 a diciembre de 2008 en el Hospital Universitario del Valle (HUV) en la ciudad de Cali. Se tuvieron en cuenta variables relacionadas con los antecedentes urológicos, la etiología, el diagnóstico de la fractura, el procedimiento quirúrgico y el seguimiento. Se realizó un análisis univariado con el programa estadístico STATA v. 10.1RESULTADOS: Se encontraron 18 casos de fractura de pene con un promedio de edad de 30 años. 11 pacientes (61%) presentaron el episodio secundario a la relación sexual. Se presentó edema, dolor y chasquido más frecuentemente. El diagnóstico fue clínico en el 100% de los casos. El abordaje quirúrgico se realizó con una incisión circunferencial en la mayoría de los pacientes. El cuerpo cavernoso derecho fue el más frecuentemente lesionado y en la mayoría de los casos la lesión fue corregida con una sutura absorbible de forma continua. Los pacientes tuvieron una hospitalización posquirúrgica en promedio de 1.5 días.CONCLUSIONES: La fractura de pene es una entidad cuyo diagnóstico es clínico, debe realizarse de forma precoz y la reparación quirúrgica es el tratamiento de elección para evitar complicaciones y permitir que el paciente retorne a su actividad sexual satisfactoria de manera temprana(AU)

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with penile fracture in the Hospital Universitario del Valle (Cali, Colombia).METHODS: A descriptive study, reviewing all the medical records of patientsdiagnosed with penile fracture from January 2001 to December 2008 at Hospital Universitario del Valle (HUV) in Cali. It took into account variables related to urological history, etiology, diagnosis, the surgical treatment and follow-up. Univariate analysis was performed with the statistical program STATA v. 10.1. RESULTS: There were 18 cases of penile fracture with an average age of 30 years. 11 patients (61%) had episodes related to intercourse. Patients presented swelling, pain and popping or cracking sound. The diagnosis was done by history and physical examination in 100%. Surgery was performed with a subcoronal incision in most of the patients. The right corpus cavernosum was frequently injured and corrected with absorbable suture. The patients had an average of 1.5 days of postoperative hospital stay.CONCLUSIONS: Penile fracture is an entity the diagnosis of which is straightforward and can be reliable by history and physical examination. Surgical repair is the treatment of choice preventing complications, allowing the patient to return to satisfactory sexual life(AU)

Interobserver variation of prostatic volume estimation with digital rectal examination by urological staffs with different experiences

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of estimating prostatic volume with digital rectal examination (DRE) by urological staffs with different experiences. Measurement of prostatic volume with transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) serves as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine consecutive male patients admitted with acute urinary retention had their prostatic volume estimated with DRE by a urology junior trainee, a urology higher trainee and a trained urologist. All patients had TRUS to measure their prostatic volumes. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were used to assess the relationships between the prostatic volume measured with TRUS and that estimated with DRE by the 3 urological staffs. Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were used to compare the discrepancies between the prostatic volume measured with TRUS and that estimated with DRE for the 3 Urological staffs, and to assess the inter-observer differences of these discrepancies. RESULTS: The correlation coefficients for the 3 urological staffs were r = 0.573 for the urology junior trainee, r = 0.541 for the urology higher trainee, and r = 0.640 for the trained urologist. The median discrepancies between the prostatic volume measured with TRUS and that estimated with DRE were -9.1 mL for the urology junior trainee, -1.3 mL for the urology higher trainee and 0.9 mL for the trained urologist. These discrepancies were statistically significant only in the case of urology junior trainee (p = 0.015, Wilcoxon signed ranks test). The difference in these discrepancies was statistically significant only between the urology junior trainee and the trained urologist (p = 0.003, Wilcoxon signed ranks test). CONCLUSIONS: The trained urologist was more accurate in estimating prostatic volume with DRE than the urology junior trainee.