Intraprostatic Injection of Tranexamic Acid Decrease Blood Loss During Monopolar Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the role of intraprostatic injection of tranexamic acid (TXA) in reducing blood loss during transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial involving 60 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia aged 50-85years, undergoing monopolar TURP. Patients' prostatic weights ranged from 50 to 80 g. They were divided equally into two groups: group I received an intraprostatic injection of 1 g of TXA (Cyklokapron) dissolved in 50 mL of 0.9 % saline at multiple sites, while group II (control) received a 60 mL saline injection. Comprehensive clinical assessments and standard laboratory tests, including screenings for TXA hypersensitivity, were performed for all patients. RESULTS: Group I exhibited significantly lower intraoperative blood loss and hemoglobin concentration in irrigation fluid immediately postsurgery and at the 6-hour postoperative mark compared to group II (P < .05). Coagulation parameters-activated partial thromboplastin time, prothrombin time, fibrinogen level, and thrombin clotting time-showed no significant differences between the groups preoperatively or at 6 and 24 hours postoperatively. No thromboembolic events or other complications were reported in either group. CONCLUSION: The intraprostatic injection of TXA during monopolar TURP is safe, with minimal adverse effects, and effectively reduces blood loss. REGISTRATION: The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov No (ID: NCT05913466).

Comparative study between antegrade flexible ureteroscopy and reterograde intrarenal surgery in the management of impacted upper ureteric stones 1.5 cm or larger.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively investigate the safety and efficacy of antegrade flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) with the following criteria (supine, ultrasonic guided puncture through lower calyx with 14 fr tract, tubeless) versus retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of large impacted upper ureteric stones ≥ 1.5 cm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study recruited 61 patients with single large impacted upper ureteric stone of ≥ 1.5 cm. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups. Group A, included 31 patients who treated by antegrade FURS, all patients were put in supine modified galadako Valdivia position and the renal access is reached by ultrasonic guided puncture through the lower calyx with dilatation upto 14 fr to insert ureteric access sheath and all cases were tubless with JJ stent insertion. Group B, included 30 patients who were treated by RIRS with JJ stent insertion. Stone fragmentation was done by holmium laser in both group. RESULTS: Group A was significantly associated with higher proportion of SFR (90.3%) compared to Group B (70%) (p = 0.046). Group B was significantly associated with shorter operative time and fluoroscopy time in comparison with Group A (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between studied groups regarding bleeding (p = 0.238). Urosepsis showed significantly higher proportion associated with retrograde approach when compared to antegrade approach (p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: This study showed that antegrade FURS is safe and more effective than RIRS for the management of large impacted upper ureteric stones ≥ 1.5 cm.

Evaluation of ultrathin semirigid ureteroscopy in terms of efficiency and cost compared to flexible ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized multicenter study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the outcome and cost-effectiveness of ultrathin 6-7.5-Fr semirigid ureteroscopy in treating proximal ureteric stones compared to flexible ureteroscopy. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty patients with a solitary proximal ureteric stone were eligible for ureteroscopy (stone size = 1-2 cm). Patients were randomly subdivided into two groups: Group I included 105 patients who underwent ultrathin semirigid ureteroscopy and group II included 115 patients who underwent flexible ureteroscopy. Both groups were compared regarding successful stone access, operation time, reoperation rates, the financial cost to stone-free, complications, and stone clearance at 4 and 8 weeks. RESULTS: Groups I and II had no significant differences regarding patient demographics, stone criteria, and hospitalization time. In contrast, the mean operative time was significantly longer in group II (p < 0.001). The overall scope-to-stone access rate was 89.5%. It was 87.6% compared to 91.3% (p = 0.32), while the stone-free rate was 81.9% versus 87.8% (p = 0.22) for groups I and II, respectively. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were statistically insignificant between the study groups. The cost/person in Egyptian pounds was 8619 ± 350 in group I, compared to 17,620 ± 280 in group II (p < 0.001); similarly, the cost to attain the stone-free rate was 8950 ± 720 in group I compared to 17,950 ± 500 in group II. CONCLUSION: Ultrathin semirigid ureteroscopy is safe, durable, and considered a cost-effective method for treating upper ureteric calculi compared to the flexible ureteroscopy and could be considered a first treatment option in developing countries.

The effect of piezoelectric shockwave lithotripsy with 2- and 8-mm focus sizes on stone disintegration and renal injury.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) using a narrow focus or wide focus for renal stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A double-blind randomised trial included adult patients with a solitary radio-opaque renal pelvic stone of 1-2 cm. Patients were randomised into two groups: narrow-focus (2 mm) SWL and wide-focus (8 mm) SWL. The stone-free rate (SFR) and presence of complications such as haematuria, fever, pain, and peri-renal haematoma were evaluated. Pre- and postoperative urinary markers (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin [NGAL] and kidney injury molecule 1 [KIM-1]) concentrations were compared to assess renal injury. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were recruited for this study. The SFR after the first SWL session was 79.2% and 69.1% in narrow- and wide-focus groups, respectively. There was a comparable rise in the median 2-h NGAL concentration in both groups (P = 0.62). However, the rise in the median (interquartile range [IQR]) 2-h KIM-1 concentration was significantly higher in the narrow-focus group at 4.9 (4.6, 5.8) ng/mL compared with the wide-focus group at 4.4 (3.2, 5.7) ng/mL (P = 0.02). Nevertheless, the 3-day NGAL and KIM-1 urinary marker concentrations were significantly improved (P = 0.263 and P = 0.963, respectively). The overall SFR after three sessions was 86.6% and 86.8% in the narrow- and wide-focus groups, respectively (P = 0.77). Both groups were comparable for complications, apart from the median pain score and the percentage of high-grade haematuria, which were significantly higher in the narrow-focus group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSION: Narrow- and wide-focus SWL were associated with comparable outcomes and re-treatment rates. However, narrow-focus SWL was associated with significantly higher morbidity in terms of pain and haematuria.

Transperineal intraprostatic injection of botulinum neurotoxin A vs transurethral resection of prostate for management of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostate hyperplasia: A prospective randomised study.

Objectives: To evaluate transperineal intraprostatic injection of botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT-A) in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) who failed to respond to 6-month medical treatment compared with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Patients and methods: In all, 92 men were divided into TURP and BoNT-A groups after being evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function, estimation of serum total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA), ultrasonographic estimation of prostatic volume (PV), and uroflowmetry determination of voiding volume (VV), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and post-void residual urine volume (PVR). BoNT-A (200 U diluted in 3 mL saline) was injected, using a 22-G spinal needle under transrectal ultrasonography guidance, with 1-mL in each lobe. Patients were assessed 3-monthly for 12 months. Results: The IPSS significantly decreased in all patients with a non-significant difference between the groups. The mean VV and Qmax increased, whilst PVR, PV and serum tPSA significantly decreased. Patients who showed deterioration at 12 months were re-evaluated and underwent TURP. BoNT-A injection significantly maintained erectile function compared with TURP. Conclusion: Intraprostatic BoNT-A injection reduced PV with subsequent increases in VV and Qmax, and decreases in PVR and serum tPSA level. Intraprostatic BoNT-A injection allowed surgery sparing in >70% and preserved erectile function in 91.3% of patients. Abbreviations: BoNT-A: botulinum neurotoxin A; HRQOL: health-related quality of life; IIEF-5: five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function; PV: prostatic volume; PVR: post-void residual urine volume; Qmax: maximum urinary flow rate; tPSA: total PSA; VV: voided volume.