Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy for a Nephrogenic Adenoma of Ureter.

Nephrogenic adenoma is a rare and benign tumour of the urinary tract thought to be caused by metaplastic change of native urothelial tissue. The majority of cases arise in the bladder, with very few cases affecting the ureter reported in the literature. Herein, we describe the presentation, diagnostic challenges, and the eventual management of a nephrogenic adenoma of the ureter by robot-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy. Urologists and pathologists should be aware of the potential diagnostic and management pitfalls associated with this rare tumour, as well as the sparsity of evidence with respect to follow-up.

Invasive urodynamic studies for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with voiding dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Invasive urodynamic tests are used to investigate men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and voiding dysfunction to determine a definitive objective diagnosis. The aim is to help clinicians select the treatment that is most likely to be successful. These investigations are invasive and time-consuming. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether performing invasive urodynamic investigation, as opposed to other methods of diagnosis such as non-invasive urodynamics or clinical history and examination alone, reduces the number of men with continuing symptoms of voiding dysfunction. This goal will be achieved by critically appraising and summarising current evidence from randomised controlled trials related to clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. This review is not intended to consider whether urodynamic tests are reliable for making clinical diagnoses, nor whether one type of urodynamic test is better than another for this purpose.The following comparisons were made.• Urodynamics versus clinical management.• One type of urodynamics versus another. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, issue 10), MEDLINE (1 January 1946 to Week 4 October 2014), MEDLINE In-Process and other non-indexed citations (covering 27 November 2014; all searched on 28 November 2014), EMBASE Classic and EMBASE (1 January 2010 to Week 47 2014, searched on 28 November 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (searched on 1 December 2014 and 3 December 2014, respectively), as well as the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing clinical outcomes in men who were and were not investigated with the use of invasive urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamics against another, were included. Trials were excluded if they did not report clinical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials, but data were available for only 339 men in one trial, of whom 188 underwent invasive urodynamic studies. We found evidence of risk of bias, such as lack of outcome information for 24 men in one arm of the trial.Statistically significant evidence suggests that the tests did change clinical decision making. Men in the invasive urodynamics arm were more likely to have their management changed than men in the control arm (proportion with change in management 24/188 (13%) vs 0/151 (0%), risk ratio (RR) 39.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.42 to 642.74). However, the quality of the evidence was low.Low-quality evidence indicates that men in the invasive urodynamics group were less likely to undergo surgery as treatment for voiding LUTS (164/188 (87%) vs 151/151 (100%), RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.92).Investigators observed no difference in urine flow rates before and after surgery for LUTS (mean percentage increase in urine flow rate, 140% in invasive urodynamic group vs 149% in immediate surgery group, P value = 0.13). Similarly, they found no differences between groups with regards to International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (mean percentage decrease in IPSS score, 58% in invasive urodynamics group vs 59% in immediate surgery group, P value = 0.22).No evidence was available to demonstrate whether differences in management equated to improved health outcomes, such as relief of symptoms of voiding dysfunction or improved quality of life.No evidence from randomised trials revealed the adverse effects associated with invasive urodynamic studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although invasive urodynamic testing did change clinical decision making, we found no evidence to demonstrate whether this led to reduced symptoms of voiding dysfunction after treatment. Larger definitive trials of better quality are needed, in which men are randomly allocated to management based on invasive urodynamic findings or to management based on findings obtained by other diagnostic means. This research will show whether performance of invasive urodynamics results in reduced symptoms of voiding dysfunction after treatment.

Urodynamic studies for management of urinary incontinence in children and adults: A short version Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Urodynamic tests are used to investigate people who have urinary incontinence or other urinary symptoms in order to make an objective diagnosis. The investigations are invasive and time consuming. OBJECTIVES: To determine if treatment according to a urodynamic-based diagnosis, compared to treatment based on history and examination, leads to more effective clinical care and better clinical outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialized Register (searched February 19, 2013); reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized trials in people who were and were not investigated using urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamic test against another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two independent review authors carried out trial assessment, selection, and data abstraction. RESULTS: We found eight trials but data were available for only 1,036 women in seven trials. Women undergoing urodynamics were more likely to have their management changed (17% vs. 3%, risk ratio [RR] 5.07, 95% CI 1.87-13.74). Two trials suggested that women were more likely to receive drugs (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32-3.31), but, in five trials, women were not more likely to undergo surgery (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88-1.12). There was no statistically significant difference in urinary incontinence in women who had urodynamics (37%) compared with those undergoing history and clinical examination alone (36%) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86-1.21). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While urodynamics did change clinical decision-making, there was some high-quality evidence that this did not result in lower urinary incontinence rates after treatment.

Urodynamic studies for management of urinary incontinence in children and adults.

BACKGROUND: Urodynamic tests are used to investigate people who have urinary incontinence or other urinary symptoms in order to make a definitive, objective diagnosis. The aim is to help select the treatment most likely to be successful. The investigations are invasive and time consuming. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine if treatment according to a urodynamic-based diagnosis, compared to treatment based on history and examination, led to more effective clinical care of people with urinary incontinence and better clinical outcomes.The intention was to test the following hypotheses in predefined subgroups of people with incontinence:(i) urodynamic investigations improve the clinical outcomes;(ii) urodynamic investigations alter clinical decision making;(iii) one type of urodynamic test is better than another in improving the outcomes of management of incontinence or influencing clinical decisions, or both. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process, handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 19 February 2013), and the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing clinical outcomes in groups of people who were and were not investigated using urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamic test against another were included. Trials were excluded if they did not report clinical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials involving around 1100 people were included but data were only available for 1036 women in seven trials, of whom 526 received urodynamics. There was some evidence of risk of bias. The four deaths and 12 dropouts in the control arm of one trial were unexplained.There was significant evidence that the tests did change clinical decision making. Women in the urodynamic arms of three trials were more likely to have their management changed (proportion with change in management compared with the control arm 17% versus 3%, risk ratio (RR) 5.07, 95% CI 1.87 to 13.74), although there was statistical heterogeneity. There was evidence from two trials that women treated after urodynamic investigations were more likely to receive drugs (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.31). On the other hand, in five trials women undergoing treatment following urodynamic investigation were not more likely to undergo surgery (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12).There was no statistically significant difference however in the number of women with urinary incontinence if they received treatment guided by urodynamics (37%) compared with those whose treatment was based on history and clinical findings alone (36%) (for example, RR for the number with incontinence after the first year 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21). It was calculated that the number of women needed to treat was 100 women (95% CI 86 to 114 women) undergoing urodynamics to prevent one extra individual being incontinent at one year.One trial reported adverse effects and no significant difference was found (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.50). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While urodynamic tests did change clinical decision making, there was some evidence that this did not result in better outcomes in terms of a difference in urinary incontinence rates after treatment. There was no evidence about their use in men, children, or people with neurological diseases. Larger definitive trials are needed in which people are randomly allocated to management according to urodynamic findings or to management based on history and clinical examination to determine if performance of urodynamics results in higher continence rates after treatment.