A randomized trial comparing 2 doses of polidocanol sclerotherapy for hydrocele or spermatocele.

PURPOSE: Polidocanol sclerotherapy for hydrocele or spermatocele combines high efficiency with low morbidity, but the optimal dose is not known. We compared the efficacy and morbidity of 2 or 4 ml polidocanol sclerotherapy for hydrocele or spermatocele. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1993 to 2005 a double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted using 2 or 4 ml polidocanol (30 mg/ml) for sclerotherapy of hydrocele/spermatocele in 224 evaluable patients at 3 university hospitals. Fluid was evacuated and 2 or 4 ml polidocanol was administered by a nurse, with the amount injected concealed from others present. At 3-month followup morbidity was ascertained using a questionnaire completed by the patients. Fluid recurrence was determined clinically and generally re-treated. RESULTS: After the first treatment, cure was observed in 59% and 47% in the 4 and the 2 ml group, respectively (p = 0.04). More patients in the 4 ml group had complications (31% vs 18%, p = 0.04). Complications were mostly of low or moderate intensity and seldom required medication. After 1 to 4 treatments 200 of 224 patients (89%) were cured and another 10 (5%) had small amounts of residual fluid, with no difference between the groups. Of the patients with hydroceles/spermatoceles larger than 175 ml, 58% and 34% were cured after the first treatment in the 4 and 2 ml groups, respectively (p = 0.012), with no differences in complications between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Polidocanol sclerotherapy was effective for the treatment of hydrocele or spermatocele in our patients, with 94% satisfactory results after 1 to 4 treatments. A dose of 4 ml was superior to 2 ml, particularly for larger hydroceles/spermatoceles.

The Study of Active Monitoring in Sweden (SAMS): a randomized study comparing two different follow-up schedules for active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Only a minority of patients with low-risk prostate cancer needs treatment, but the methods for optimal selection of patients for treatment are not established. This article describes the Study of Active Monitoring in Sweden (SAMS), which aims to improve those methods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: SAMS is a prospective, multicentre study of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. It consists of a randomized part comparing standard rebiopsy and follow-up with an extensive initial rebiopsy coupled with less intensive follow-up and no further scheduled biopsies (SAMS-FU), as well as an observational part (SAMS-ObsQoL). Quality of life is assessed with questionnaires and compared with patients receiving primary curative treatment. SAMS-FU is planned to randomize 500 patients and SAMS-ObsQoL to include at least 500 patients during 5 years. The primary endpoint is conversion to active treatment. The secondary endpoints include symptoms, distant metastases and mortality. All patients will be followed for 10-15 years. RESULTS: Inclusion started in October 2011. In March 2013, 148 patients were included at 13 Swedish urological centres. CONCLUSIONS: It is hoped that the results of SAMS will contribute to fewer patients with indolent, low-risk prostate cancer receiving unnecessary treatment and more patients on active surveillance who need treatment receiving it when the disease is still curable. The less intensive investigational follow-up in the SAMS-FU trial would reduce the healthcare resources allocated to this large group of patients if it replaced the present standard schedule.

Postoperative analgesia after radical retropubic prostatectomy: a double-blind comparison between low thoracic epidural and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain after radical retropubic prostatectomy can be severe unless adequately treated. Low thoracic epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia were compared in this double-blind, randomized study. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive either low thoracic epidural analgesia (group E) or patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (group P) for postoperative pain relief. All patients had general anesthesia combined with thoracic epidural analgesia during the operation. Postoperatively, patients in group E received an infusion of 1 mg/ml ropivacaine, 2 microg/ml fentanyl, and 2 microg/ml adrenaline, 10 ml/h during 48 h epidurally, and a placebo patient-controlled intravenous analgesia pump intravenously. Patients in group P received a patient-controlled intravenous analgesia pump with morphine intravenously and 10 ml/h placebo epidurally. Pain, the primary outcome variable, was measured using the numeric rating scale at rest (incision pain and "deep" visceral pain) and on coughing. Secondary outcome variables included gastrointestinal function, respiratory function, mobilization, and full recovery. Health-related quality of life was measured using the Short Form-36 questionnaire, and plasma concentration of fentanyl was measured in five patients to exclude a systemic effect of fentanyl. RESULTS: Incisional pain and pain on coughing were lower in group E compared with group P at 2-24 h, as was deep pain between 3 and 24 h postoperatively (P < 0.05). Maximum expiratory pressure was greater in group E at 4 and 24 h (P < 0.05) compared with group P. No difference in time to home discharge was found between the groups. The mean plasma fentanyl concentration varied from 0.2 to 0.3 ng/ml during 0-48 h postoperatively. At 1 month, the scores on emotional role, physical functioning, and general health of the Short Form-36 were higher in group E compared with group P. However, no group x time interaction was found in the Short Form-36. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found evidence for better pain relief and improved expiratory muscle function in patients receiving low thoracic epidural analgesia compared with patient-controlled analgesia for radical retropubic prostatectomy. Low thoracic epidural analgesia can be recommended as a good method for postoperative analgesia after abdominal surgery.