High-intensity focused ultrasound therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer: Medium-term experience. / Terapia ultrasonido focalizado de alta intensidad (HIFU) para el tratamiento del cáncer de próstata: Experiencia a medio plazo.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of localised prostate cancer seeks to minimise the impact on sexual function and urinary continence. In this respect, therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound offers important results. We present our experience with this technique in 2 Spanish centres. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 75 patients with localised prostate cancer treated with high-intensity focused ultrasound between March 2007 and July 2016. The oncological results and perioperative complications were assessed, as well as the impact on sexual function and continence. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients were analysed. The mean follow-up was 7.2 years. The PSA nadir was 0.2ng/mL (0-3), 24 patients (35.5%) presented biochemical recurrence, and 18 underwent a further biopsy, with 10 cases (55.5%) presenting disease recurrence. The overall biochemical relapse-free survival at 5 and 8 years was 93.2 and 80.5%, respectively. The cancer-specific survival at 5 and 8 years was 96% in both cases. In the postoperative period, 50 patients (74.6%) were continent, 16 (23.9%) reported mild incontinence, and one (1.5%) reported moderate incontinence. The median International Index of Erectile Function-5 before and after the surgery was 17 (5-25) and 16 (2-23) points, respectively. Nine patients reported de novo erectile dysfunction (13.5%). CONCLUSION: High-intensity focused ultrasound appears to be a safe alternative for the treatment of localised prostate cancer, especially for low-risk localised prostate cancer. In our experience, this technique offers advantages in preserving urinary continence, and the medium-term oncological results are encouraging. Given the natural progression of prostate cancer, long-term studies with a larger number of cases are needed to corroborate these results.

Comparative study for the efficacy and safety of percutaneous nefhrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of 2-3,5 cm kidney stones. / Estudio comparativo de eficacia y seguridad de la nefrolitotomía percutánea (NLPC) y la cirugía retrógrada intrarrenal (CRIR) para litiasis renales de 2-3,5 cm.

OBJECTIVES: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has become an important alternative for the treatment of kidney stones due to its increased safety and efficiency. The purpose of this study is to compare efficacy and safety features of RIRS against percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of 2 - 3.5 cm kidney stones. METHODS: 142 cases (106 RIRS and 36 PCNL) encompassing 2 - 3.5 cm kidney stones that have been treated in our center between December 2009 and December 2011 have been considered. Demographic variables, stone characteristics, surgical stay and surgical time have been evaluated. Additionally, the complication prerate and success rate after one and two procedures (retreatment) have also been assessed. Student's T, Mann-Whitney U y Chi² - V Cramer (p=0.05) tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There are not statistically significant differences in demographic or stone variables. The calculated mean surgical time was lower for PCNL (85 min) than for RIRS (112 min). Mean hospital stay was statistically significantly shorter in RIRS (16 h vs. 98 h in RIRS, p=0.001). PCNL exhibited a higher global complication rate of 19.4% vs. 6.6% for RIRS (p=0.001). PCNL also showed a higher successful rate (80.6% vs. 73.6% for RIRS), although this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.40). When comparing the success rate after a second procedure, PCNL results in 94.3% vs. 93.5% for RIRS (p=0.88). CONCLUSION: RIRS was found to be a safe and efficient procedure with a short hospital stay. Overall, RIRS can be considered as an alternative to PCNL for the treatment of renal stones smaller than 3.5 cm.