RESUMEN
CONTEXT: In an increasingly ageing transplant population, timely management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) is key to preventing complications that result in graft dysfunction or compromise survival. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate benefits/harms of BPO treatments in transplant patients by reviewing current literature. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A computerised bibliographic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed for studies reporting outcomes on BPO treatments in transplanted patients. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 5021 renal transplants (RTs) performed between 1990 and 2016 were evaluated. BPO incidence was 1.61 per 1000 population per year. Overall, 264 men underwent intervention. The mean age was 58.4 yr (27-73 yr). In all, 169 patients underwent surgery (n = 114 transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP]/n = 55 transurethral incision of the prostate [TUIP]) and 95 were treated with an un-named alpha-blocker (n = 46) or doxazosin (n = 49). There was no correlation between prostate volume and treatment modality (mean prostate size = 26 cc in the surgical group where reported and 48 cc in the medical group). The mean follow-up was 31.2 mo (2-192 mo). The time from RT to BPO treatment was reported in six studies (mean: 15.4 mo, range: 0-156 mo). The time on dialysis before RT was recorded in only three studies (mean: 47.3 mo, range: 0-288 mo). There was a mean improvement in creatinine after intervention from 2.17 to 1.77 mg/dl. A total of 157 men showed an improvement in the International Prostate Symptom Score (from 18.26 to 6.89), and there was a significant reduction in postvoid residual volume in 199 (mean fall 90.6 ml). Flow improved by a mean of 10 ml/s following intervention in 199 patients. Complications included acute urinary retention (4.1%), urinary tract infections (8.4%), bladder neck contracture (2.2%), and urethral strictures (6.9%). The mean reoperation rate was 1.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature is heterogeneous and of low-level evidence. Despite this, alpha-blockers, TUIP, and TURP showed a beneficial increase in the peak urinary flow and reduced symptoms in transplants patients with BPO. Improvement in the mean graft creatinine was noted after intervention. Complications were under-reported. A multicentre comparative cohort study is needed to draw firm conclusions about the ideal treatment for BPO in RT patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we looked at the outcomes for transplant patients undergoing medical or surgical management of benign prostatic obstruction. Although the literature was very heterogeneous, we found that medical management and surgery with transurethral resection/incision of the prostate are beneficial for improving urinary flow and bothersome symptoms. We conclude that further prospective studies are required for better clarity about timing and modality of intervention in transplant patients.
Asunto(s)
Hiperplasia Prostática , Resección Transuretral de la Próstata , Obstrucción del Cuello de la Vejiga Urinaria , Retención Urinaria , Masculino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Resección Transuretral de la Próstata/efectos adversos , Hiperplasia Prostática/complicaciones , Hiperplasia Prostática/cirugía , Próstata , Retención Urinaria/complicaciones , Obstrucción del Cuello de la Vejiga Urinaria/epidemiología , Obstrucción del Cuello de la Vejiga Urinaria/etiología , Obstrucción del Cuello de la Vejiga Urinaria/cirugíaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To systematically review studies focused on the feasibility and outcomes of outpatient endoscopic enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic obstruction. METHODS: A literature search was conducted through December 2022 using PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Embase databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. Risk of bias assessment was performed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case control studies. RESULTS: Of 773 studies, ten were included in the systematic review (n = 1942 patients) and four in the meta-analysis (n = 1228 patients). The pooled incidence of successful same-day discharge was 84% (95% CI 0.72-0.91). Unplanned readmission was recorded in 3% (95% CI 0.02-0.06) of ambulatory cases. In the reported criteria-selected patients submitted to SDD surgery, the forest plot suggested a lower rate of postoperative readmission (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.91, p = 0.02) and complications (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48-1, p < 0.05) rates compared to standard protocols. CONCLUSION: We provide the first systematic review and meta-analysis on SDD for endoscopic prostate enucleation. Despite the lack of randomized controlled trials, we confirm the feasibility and safety of the protocol with no increase in complications or readmission rate in well-selected patients.
Asunto(s)
Hiperplasia Prostática , Resección Transuretral de la Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Próstata/cirugía , Hiperplasia Prostática/cirugía , Alta del Paciente , Resultado del Tratamiento , Resección Transuretral de la Próstata/métodosRESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The standard diagnosis of carcinoma in situ (CIS) of the bladder, based on white light cystoscopy and urine cytology, is limited because CIS can vary from normal-appearing mucosa to a lesion indistinguishable from an inflammatory process. Intravesical instillation of Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) remains first-line therapy; however, a significant proportion of cases persist or recur after BCG treatment. This review summarizes recent improvements in the detection and treatment of CIS. RECENT FINDINGS: The new optical technologies improve CIS detection, with a potential positive impact on oncological outcomes. The usefulness of MRI-photodynamic diagnosis fusion transurethral resection in CIS detection is unclear and further studies are needed. BCG instillation remains the first-line therapy in CIS patients and seems to improve recurrence and progression rates, especially with the use of maintenance. Intravesical device-assisted therapies could be effective in both BCG-naïve and BCG-unresponsive CIS patients, but further studies are ongoing to clarify their clinical benefit. A phase II clinical trial with pembrolizumab has shown the potential effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in BCG-unresponsive CIS patients and further trials are ongoing. SUMMARY: New optical techniques increase the CIS detection rate. BCG instillation remains the first-line treatment. Immune checkpoint inhibitors could be a future alternative in BCG-naïve and BCG-unresponsive CIS patients.
Asunto(s)
Vacuna BCG/uso terapéutico , Carcinoma in Situ/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria/tratamiento farmacológico , Administración Intravesical , Humanos , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia , Fotoquimioterapia , Resección Transuretral de la PróstataRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Radical cystectomy (RC) is one of the most complex and morbid surgical procedures in Urology. Several retrospective and prospective studies have demonstrated that robotic-assisted RC (RARC) represents a minimally invasive alternative to open surgery, showing non-inferiority in mid-term oncological outcomes. Moreover, important advantages related with perioperative complications have also been published. The aim of this article is to describe RARC surgical steps and to review the most relevant ndings in the eld of RARC, focusing on its strengths and weaknesses when compared with open RC. METHODS: We performed a detailed step-by-step description of the RARC surgical technique, paying particular attention to its specific surgical details and adding our tips and tricks for an out standing performance. We also conducted a review of the most relevant articles in literature in terms of oncological, pathological and perioperative results. All these findings have been compared with the classical open radical cystectomy (ORC) technique. RESULTS: None of the studies published have demonstrated RARC to have worse oncological outcomes (PSM,RFS, CSS, OS) compared to ORC. RARC shows a decrease in blood loss and transfusion rates. No differences have been observed in complications rate, length of hospital stay, quality of life, and time to bowel movement between both approaches. The two disadvantages of RARC compared to ORC are a longer operative time and increased cost. Operating time can be reduced with surgeons gaining experience and technique standardization. The cost disparities and operative time between ORC and RARC at high-volume academic centers are less pronounced than in the general medical community. CONCLUSIONS: RARC is a technically feasible and safe approach, with oncological, pathological and perioperative results, at least, equivalent to ORC.
ARTICULO SOLO EN INGLES.OBJETIVO: La cistectomía radical (CR) esuno de los procedimientos quirúrgicos más complejosy con mayor morbilidad. Varios estudios retrospectivosy prospectivos han demostrado que la CR asistida porrobot (CRAR) representa una alternativa mínimamente invasivaa la cirugía abierta, mostrando no inferioridad enlos resultados oncológicos a medio plazo. Además, sehan publicado importantes ventajas en relación con lascomplicaciones peroperatorias. El objetivo de este artículoes describir los pasos quirúrgicos de la CRAR y revisarlos hallazgos más relevantes en el campo de la CRAR,focalizando en sus fortalezas y debilidades cuando secomparan con la CR abierta. MÉTODOS: Realizamos una descripción paso a paso,detallada, de la técnica quirúrgica de CRAR, poniendoparticular atención a sus detalles quirúrgicos específicos yañadiendo nuestros trucos y consejos para una ejecución excelente. También realizamos una revisión de los artículos más relevantes de la literatura en términos de resultadosoncológicos, patológicos y peroperatorios. Todosestos hallazgos se han comparado con los de la técnicaclásica de cistectomía radical abierta (CRA). RESULTADOS: Ninguno de los estudios publicados hademostrado que la CRAR tenga peores resultados oncológicos(márgenes quirúrgicos positivos, supervivencia librede recurrencia, cáncer específica y global) en comparación con la CRA. La CRAR muestra un descenso del sangradoy las tasas de transfusión. No se han observadodiferencias entre ambos abordajes en las tasas de complicaciones,estancias hospitalarias, calidad de vida y eltiempo hasta la deposición. Dos desventajas de la CRARen comparación con la CRA son el tiempo operatoriomás largo y el aumento del coste. El tiempo operatorio puede reducirse con el aumento de la experiencia de loscirujanos y la estandarización de la técnica. Las disparidadesen los costes y la duración de la cirugía son menospronunciadas en centros académicos de gran volumen que en los de la comunidad médica general. CONCLUSIONES: La CRAR es un abordaje técnicamentefactible y seguro, con resultados oncológicos, patológicosy peroperatorios, al menos, equivalentes a los dela CRA.
Asunto(s)
Cistectomía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria , Pérdida de Sangre Quirúrgica , Cistectomía/métodos , Humanos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Estudios Prospectivos , Calidad de Vida , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Neoplasias de la Vejiga Urinaria/cirugíaAsunto(s)
Conducta Cooperativa , Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud/organización & administración , Cooperación Internacional , Trasplante de Riñón , Donadores Vivos/provisión & distribución , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos/organización & administración , Selección de Donante , Europa (Continente) , Histocompatibilidad , Humanos , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de SaludRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Because of the shortage of cadaveric kidneys for allograft transplantation, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is becoming a more feasible option. Several large published series have reported hospital stays as long as 3.3 days. We report the positive effect of preoperative bowel rest and the use of ketorolac for postoperative analgesia on reducing the hospital stay after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. METHODS: From 2000 to 2005, 300 patients underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at our institution by a single surgeon (P.G.S.). All patients underwent a bowel preparation regimen involving a clear liquid diet beginning 2 days before surgery. Furthermore, two bottles of magnesium citrate were taken orally the day before surgery, and all patients fasted after midnight before surgery. Patients self-administered one Fleets enema the evening before surgery. Postoperatively, the patients received ketorolac 30 mg intravenously every 6 hours for a maximum of 48 hours, with additional narcotics if necessary for analgesia. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 180 +/- 55 minutes. Typically, patients were admitted the day of surgery and discharged the next postoperative day. The mean donor hospital stay was 1.1 days (range 1 to 3) with no readmissions. More than 97% of our patients were able to tolerate a clear liquid diet, pass flatus, and ambulate the day after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: With implementation of a strict bowel preparation regimen and the use of ketorolac for postoperative analgesia, the donor length of stay was markedly improved from previously published results. We attribute the shorter hospital stay to the quicker return of bowel function and to less postoperative discomfort.