A multicenter comparison of the safety and effectiveness of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy in obese and normal weight patients.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical treatment of kidney stones in an obese patient (body mass index [BMI] >30 kg/m(2)) remains challenging as shockwave lithotripsy may not be an option due to weight limitations. We sought to determine the effectiveness of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy in obese patients compared to nonobese controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from 2004 to 2007 were retrospectively analyzed providing a group of 292 patients (163 obese, 76 overweight, 53 normal) who underwent ureteroscopic procedures for urolithiasis at four centers in the United States and Canada. RESULTS: The percentage of obese patients requiring flexible ureteroscopy (URS) (79%) was higher than in the other groups (P<0.0001). Flexible URS was associated with a lower stone-free rate (SFR) on multivariate analysis (P=0.034). There was no difference in SFRs of patients who required a ureteral access sheath, basket extraction, or received a postoperative stent. Complication rates did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: SFRs using ureteroscopic lithotripsy in obese and overweight populations are the same as in the normal weight patients. A flexible ureteroscope was associated with a decreased SFR, but this likely due to a more proximal stone location in these patients. Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy is an effective and safe technique to treat urolithiasis in the overweight/obese patient.

Bacterial sepsis after prostate biopsy--a new perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of sepsis following transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy at our center. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a group of 24 men who presented with urosepsis after undergoing TRUS biopsy at our center. RESULTS: Of the 24 men, 22 were given prophylactic ciprofloxacin. The median time to presentation of sepsis was 1 day after biopsy. The median length of hospitalization was 4 days. Escherichia coli was the most frequent cause of urosepsis (67%). Variable resistance patterns were observed. Enterobacter cloacae and Streptococcus viridans were isolated in 2 cases. No bacteria were isolated in 6 cases. Two patients who received extensive antibiotic prophylaxis still developed urosepsis. Treatment of patients infected with multiresistant anaerobic strains using metronidazole among others, proved successful. High sensitivities toward cefazolin, gentamicin, and tobramycin were observed. The number of cases reported was likely an underestimation, because some patients may have reported to other hospitals and were not captured by this study. In addition, some patients may not have developed infection and urosepsis despite harboring ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic ciprofloxacin is still a useful option for the prevention of urosepsis after TRUS biopsy, as the incidence is relatively low. For the patient who develops urosepsis after TRUS biopsy, ciprofloxacin resistance needs to be suspected and the treatment regime should be tailored to the resistance profiles of the local region, the patient's medical history, and the culture and sensitivity reports.