A Novel Nomogram Based on Initial Features to Predict BPH Progression.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to establish a tool to identify patients at risk for pharmaceutical and surgical interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-related lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) over a 10 year follow-up. Methods: The data of patients with mild to moderate male LUTS undergoing phytotherapy from January to December 2010 were reviewed. Patients were followed for 10 years through medical visits and telephone consultations. The outcomes were (1) treatment switch from phytotherapy or no therapy to alpha-blockers or 5α-reductase inhibitors (5-ARI), and (2) clinical progression (acute urinary retention or need for surgery). Two calibrated nomograms (one for each outcome) were constructed on significant predictors at multivariate analysis. Results: A total of 107 patients with a median age of 55 years at presentation were included; 47% stopped or continued phytotherapy, while 53% switched to alpha-blockers and/or 5-ARI after a median time of 24 months. One-third in the second group experienced clinical progression after a median time of 54 months. Age, symptom score, peak flow rate (Qmax), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and post-void residual volume were significantly associated with the outcomes. According to our nomograms, patients switching therapy or progressing clinically had average scores of 75% and 40% in the dedicated nomograms, respectively, as compared to 25% and <5% in patients who did not reach any outcome. Conclusions: We developed a nomogram to predict the risk of pharmaceutical or surgical interventions for BPH-related LUTS at 10 years from presentation. On the basis of our models, thresholds of >75% and >40% for high risk and <25% and <5% for low risk of pharmaceutical or surgical interventions, respectively, can be proposed.

Holmium laser for RIRS. Watts are we doing? / Laser holmium para ureteroscopia flexible retrograda. ¿Qué estamos haciendo?

OBJECTIVE: To review recent and relevant information regarding the use of high-power (HPL) and low-power (LPL) Holmium:YAG lasers (Ho:YAG) in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lithotripsy. METHODS: A PubMed/Embase search was conducted and recent and relevant papers on Ho:YAG for RIRS were reviewed. RESULTS: Settings for Ho:YAG are pulse energy (PE), pulse frequency (PF), and pulse width. Currently, the majority of LPL can also adjust pulse-width but cannot reach PF as high as HPL, however, the higher energy outputs reached by HPL are rarely useful in lithotripsy. Higher PE might enhance ablation but generates larger fragments and higher retropulsion. Pulse width does not affect energy output but delivers energy for a longer time-length. Dusting and basketing are complementary techniques. Dusting seeks to pulverize stones into particles ≤250 µm avoiding the use of instruments for stone retrieval, whereas in fragmenting, the stones are break into smaller pieces which are then retrieved. Dusting can prevent the use of supplies such as access sheaths and baskets and also prevent the complications related to their use. However, is not always feasible in clinical practice to fully ablate a stone into dust, then the use of this supplies and popcorn technique are helpful for rendering a patient stonefree. The energy gap between HPL and LPL is wide and leaves room for a mid-power laser classification, which can overcome the main drawback of LPL, the expenses of HPL, and still holding its versatility for other procedures beyond stones. CONCLUSIONS: HPL and LPL have similar effectiveness, but long-term cost-effectiveness comparisons are underexplored. Newer HPL would need to be compared to emerging technologies as the thulium fiber, and prove superiority to mid-power laser to determine how powerful is enough for Ho:YAG in the years to come.

OBJETIVO: El láser Holmio:YAG (Ho:YAG) es el de elección para litotricia en cirugía retrógrada intrarenal (RIRS). Los equipos láser de alto poder (HPL) y bajo poder (LPL) tienen diferentes características, por lo tanto, pueden tener diferente desempeño. En el presente trabajo tuvimos el objetivo de revisar evidencia sobre el uso de HPL y LPL en RIRS. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda en PubMed/Embase y la información reciente y relevante sobre HPL y/o LPL en RIRS fue evaluada para una revisión monográfica. RESULTADOS: Los HPL y algunos LPL más recientes permiten al cirujano ajustar la duración del pulso, por lo tanto, al configurar un pulso largo, alta frecuencia y baja energía, se puede lograr una verdadera pulverización. Los LPL no pueden alcanzar la misma emisión de energía que los HPL. La retropulsión aumenta si la energía de pulso es mayor, entonces, se previene la retropulsión al incrementar la emisión total de energía mediante el incremento de la frecuencia. El costo de adquisión de los HPL es considerablemente mayor que el de los LPL, sin embargo, el costo a largo plazo pudiera ser similar pues los procedimientos pueden abaratarse al disminuir el uso de insumos para recuperar los litos, preservar la punta de las fibras reutilizables y disminuir el tiempo quirúrgico. CONCLUSIONES: La evidencia no favorece la efectividad de los HPL o LPL de modo abrumador. Ambos dispositivos son efectivos y seguros. No cabe duda de que los HPL alcanzan mayor emisión de energía que los LPL, pero los dispositivos de 50-80 Watts, tienen emisiones de energía que rara vez se alcanzan para litotricia y por lo tanto pudiera considerarse demasiada energía. A medida que nuevas tecnologías han surgido, la brecha entre LPL y HPL se amplía, dejando espacio para una clasificación de poder intermedio (36-55 Watts) y la comparación entre estos dispositivos sería más justa. Asimismo, los HPL aún necesitan ser contrastados en el escenario clínico, con las nuevas tecnologías disponibles, tal como la fibra de laser tulio.

Retropubic nerve and seminal sparing radical prostatectomy for recurrent bladder neck-prostatic urethra strictures.

OBJECTIVES: To verify if nerve and seminal sparing radical prostatectomy could represent surgical solution for iatrogenic bladder neck prostatic urethra contracture without external sphincter involvement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: At our institution 4 patients have been submitted to nerve and seminal sparing radical prostatectomy for recurrent bladder neck-prostatic urethra contracture following TURP for middle size adenoma. In all cases bladder neck was reconstructed and a 20F silicon catheter was left in place for two weeks to stint the vesico-urethral anastomosis. RESULTS: In all cases no significant perioperative complications were experienced. A normal voiding urethrogram preceded removal of the catheter 14 days postoperatively. Urinary continence was recovered by all of the patients. Uroflowmetry was persistently normal at periodic controls. With a mean follow-up of 36.3 months, no patient complained of symptomatic recurrence of urinary obstruction. In three previously potent patients, sexual activity with satisfactory intercourse was maintained. CONCLUSION: Even though our experience is very limited in terms of number of patients and length of follow-up, we think that nerve and seminal sparing radical prostatectomy, because of the limited risk of major complications and the good result in terms of preservation of both urinary continence and erectile function, can be a reasonable solution for iatrogenic bladder neck-prostatic contracture after prostatic surgery for BPH.