Effectiveness and health cost analysis between immunoprophylaxis with MV140 autovaccine, MV140 vaccine and continuous treatment with antibiotics to prevent recurrent urinary tract infections.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the results on prevention of uncomplicated recurrent UTI between continuous use of antibiotics, MV140 autovaccine and MV140 polybacterial vaccine from collection strain. METHODS: 377 patients were prospectively analyzed from January 2017 to August 2019 and divided into 3 groups according to the prophylaxis. Group A (126): antibiotics, Group B (126): MV140 autovaccine, Group C (125): MV140 polybacterial vaccine from the collection strain. Variables analyzed were: gender, age, menopause, number of UTI at baseline and 3 and 6 months after the end of prophylaxis, health cost along follow-up at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: At 3 months, group A had 0-1 UTI in 65%, group B had 0-1 UTI in 80.8% and group C in 81.7%. At 6 months, group A had 0-1 UTI in 44.4%, group B had 0-1 UTI in 61.6% and group C in 74.6%. Regarding health cost along follow-up, at 3 months group A had euro21,171.87, group B had euro20,763.73 and group C euro18,866.14. At 6 months, health cost was euro32,980.35 in group A, euro28,133.42 in group B, and euro23,629.19 in group C. CONCLUSIONS: MV140 autovaccine and MV140 polybacterial vaccine were more efficient with lower number of UTI at 3 and 6 months and lower health cost along follow-up compared to continued prophylaxis with antibiotics (p < 0.05). Polybacterial MV140 vaccine from collection strain had higher effect to reduce the number of UTI and less health cost than autovaccine.

[Comparison between open and laparoscopic approach in radical prostatectomy]. / Prostatectomia radical laparoscópica versus abierta.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the differences between laparoscopic (LRP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2004 to 2005 180 Radical prostatectomies (RP) were performed, 105 laparoscopical and 75 by an open approach. Different urologists have acted as first surgeon; 51% of them, fully experienced ones in OPR, and 56% in LRP. Differences in operative time, estimated blood loss (difference of pre and post operative hematocrite), and duration of hospitalization were compared. Additionally, we have also analysed surgical and oncologic control of the specimen defined by the following variables: Malignant margins (MM) (positive margin in a pT3 specimen), and benign/malign surgical incision (BSI/MSI). RESULTS: Groups were similar concerning age, clinical stage and Gleason score, and there are only differences in PSA. Mean operative time was significantly higher in LRP (172 minutes) versus ORP (145 minutes) (p < 0.001). Difference of pre and post operative hematocrite was also higher in the open group (10.7 vs 9.2) (p = 0.03), together with hospital stay, which was one day longer in the ORP group (p = 0.001). ORP group had a higher rate of benign surgical incisions (48.7% vs 26.7%) (p = 0.001). Regarding oncologic results, LRP presented a 5.4% of positive margins, which compared significantly with a 16.9% rate in the open group (p = 0.023). However, no differences concerning malignant surgical incisions were observed. CONCLUSION: With no differences in clinical and pathological stage, LRP offers a significant reduction of surgical aggressiveness on the specimen, together with a better MM control. We also observe a clear decrease in blood loss and hospital stay. Therefore, we conclude that LRP in our environment is a valid approach of surgical prostate cancer treatment in spite of a longer operative time (27 minutes) and a steep learning curve.