Comparing the effect of peri-operative antibiotic prophylaxis only with continuous low-dose antibiotic treatment on the incidence of urinary tract infection and stent related-symptoms in patients undergoing Double-J (DJ) stent insertion following transurethral lithotripsy (TUL).

PURPOSE: There are some controversial data about the peri operative use of antibiotics after double-J (DJ) insertion. This study aimed to compare the rates of urinary tract infections (UTI) and stent-related symptoms (SRSs) in patients who received only perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis and those given continuous low-dose antibiotic therapy for the entire stent-indwelling time following transurethral lithotripsy (TUL). METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial 178 patients received intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis (ciprofloxacin 400 mg) before the TUL and then randomly divided into two groups to either receive no antibiotic treatment after procedure (group A, 90 patients) or to additionally receive a continuous low-dose antibiotic treatment with one ciprofloxacin 500 mg every 12 h for 3 days and then ciprofloxacin 250 mg once daily for the entire stent-indwelling time (group B, 88 patients). The rates of UTIs, SRSs and incidence of drug side-effects were evaluated in groups. RESULTS: A total of 7 patients had positive urine culture [group A: 4 (4.4%) vs. group B: 3 (3.4%); P = 0.722]. Only 1 patient in group B had febrile UTI in the mean duration of indwelling stent in situ. The rate of SRSs was 92.2% and 89.8% in Group A and B, respectively, with no significant difference (P = 0.609). A total of 4 patients in Group B complained of gastrointestinal side effects of ciprofloxacin. CONCLUSION: Continuous low-dose antibiotic treatment has no role in reducing the incidence of UTIs and SRSs during the indwelling time of ureteral stents compared with the peri-operative antibiotic prophylaxis only.

Bipolar transurethral vaporization: a superior procedure in benign prostatic hyperplasia: a prospective randomized comparison with bipolar TURP.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) with bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective randomized trial, 88 patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) underwent bipolar TUVP (N = 39) or bipolar TURP (N = 49) from October 2010 to November 2011. The inclusion criteria were age > 50 years, prostate volume of 30-80 mL, serum PSA < 4 ng/mL, IPSS ≥ 20, Qmax ≤ 10 mL/s and failed medical therapy. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes were evaluated and the IPSS and Qmax were assessed preoperatively and 3 months after procedure in all cases. RESULTS: Both groups were similar in patient age, prostate volume, preoperative IPSS and Qmax. The TUVP group had significantly lower mean values of operative time, hospital stay, catheterization period, irrigation fluid volume and serum hemoglobin, creatinine, sodium and potassium changes compared with TURP group. No significant differences were seen between two groups regarding complications (TUVP = 10.3%; TURP = 12.2%) and modified Clavien classification of complications. No TUR syndrome, obturator reflex or epididymitis occurred in both groups. Re-hospitalization and transfusion due to clot retention (N = 2) and urethral stricture (N = 1) were reported only in the TURP group. Three patients experienced urinary retention after catheter removal in the TUVP group. Two patients were re-catheterized temporarily and one patient required repeat bipolar TUVP. Three months after surgery, two groups had significant improvement in IPSS and Qmax. But the TUVP group had significantly lower IPSS and higher Qmax than TURP group. CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar TUVP is a safe, effective and low cost procedure among minimally invasive surgeries of BPH. Compared with bipolar TURP, the bipolar TUVP had similar complications, better perioperative and postoperative outcomes, superior hemostasis and higher efficacy.

Bipolar transurethral vaporization: a superior procedure in benign prostatic hyperplasia: a prospective randomized comparison with bipolar TURP

Objective To compare the outcomes of bipolar transurethral vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) with bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Materials and Methods In a prospective randomized trial, 88 patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) underwent bipolar TUVP (N = 39) or bipolar TURP (N = 49) from October 2010 to November 2011. The inclusion criteria were age > 50 years, prostate volume of 30-80mL, serum PSA < 4ng/mL, IPSS ≥ 20, Qmax ≤ 10mL/s and failed medical therapy. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes were evaluated and the IPSS and Qmax were assessed preoperatively and 3 months after procedure in all cases. Results Both groups were similar in patient age, prostate volume, preoperative IPSS and Qmax. The TUVP group had significantly lower mean values of operative time, hospital stay, catheterization period, irrigation fluid volume and serum hemoglobin, creatinine, sodium and potassium changes compared with TURP group. No significant differences were seen between two groups regarding complications (TUVP = 10.3%; TURP = 12.2%) and modified Clavien classification of complications. No TUR syndrome, obturator reflex or epididymitis occurred in both groups. Re-hospitalization and transfusion due to clot retention (N = 2) and urethral stricture (N = 1) were reported only in the TURP group. Three patients experienced urinary retention after catheter removal in the TUVP group. Two patients were re-catheterized temporarily and one patient required repeat bipolar TUVP. Three months after surgery, two groups had significant improvement in IPSS and Qmax. But the TUVP group had significantly lower IPSS and higher Qmax than TURP group. Conclusions Bipolar TUVP is a safe, effective and low cost procedure among minimally invasive surgeries of BPH. Compared with bipolar TURP, the bipolar TUVP had similar complications, better ...

Treatment of loin pain suspected to be renal colic with papaverine hydrochloride: a prospective double-blind randomised study.

OBJECTIVE: • To assess the efficacy of papaverine hydrochloride combined with a diclofenac sodium suppository to relieve renal colic compared with diclofenac suppository monotherapy, as the effect of phosphodiesterase inhibitors on ureteric muscles might reduce the pain of renal colic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • A prospective, double-blind clinical study was performed. • In all, 550 patients aged 17-55 years with acute renal colic were randomised to two groups. Patients in one group (group A) received a diclofenac suppository (100 mg) plus saline 0.9% (placebo) and the other group (group B) received a diclofenac suppository (100 mg) plus intravenous (i.v.) papaverine hydrochloride (1.5 mg/kg up to 120 mg). • Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 0, 20 and 40 min after treatment. Further analgesia was provided at the patients' request (25 mg pethidine intramuscularly). RESULTS: • Baseline characteristics (sex, age, past history of similar pains) were similar in the two groups. • There were significant differences in VAS pain scores between 0 and 20 min and 0 and 40 min in both groups (P < 0.001). • At the end of study, 71.1% of patients in group A and 90.9% of patients in group B reported pain relief and did not require pethidine, respectively. • Significantly more patients in group A required further analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: • According to our results, i.v. papaverine hydrochloride plus a diclofenac suppository were more effective than the diclofenac suppository alone for treating acute renal colic. • Therefore, i.v. papaverine hydrochloride is a beneficial supplemental therapy to relieve renal colic pain, particularly combined with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.