Multicenter study on the use of gemcitabine to prevent recurrence of multiple-recurring superficial bladder tumors following intravesical antiblastic agents and/or BCG: evaluation of tolerance.

OBJECTIVES: The treatment of choice for superficial bladder TCC is endoscopic resection, followed or not by intravesical immuno/chemotherapy. Some patients are not responders to common intravesical therapy and are more exposed to disease progression. In this case the suitable treatment is radical cystectomy. Because gemcitabine is effective against advanced bladder cancer, we have initiated a study to evaluate the efficacy of its intravesical use to prevent relapse and disease progression, and tolerance and safety of this drug in patients with multi-treated bladders. In this preliminary study, we cite only data on tolerance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 64 patients were selected, and 61 were evaluable (age range 39-84 years), with multiple-recurrent bladder TCC. All patients were previously treated with intravesical chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. The protocol provided for intravesical instillation of gemcitabine (2000 mg) once per week for 8 weeks. We collected data regarding problems noted by the patients (both local and systemic). RESULTS: 53 patients out of 61 (86.9%) completed the cycle. Side effects appeared in 14 patients, 8 of these had to suspend the treatment. Severe side effects were systemic in 4 patients (1 systemic edema, 1 malaise and dysgeusia, 1 hyperthermia and severe strangury, 1 elevated transaminases and asthenia), and local in 4 patients (1 severe urinary urgency, 1 hematuria, 1 urinary incontinence, and 1 case of pelvic pain). In 6 patients we observed pelvic pain, hematuria, strangury and UTI of medium magnitude that did not require treatment interruption. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that the severe side effects requiring treatment interruption are attributable primarily to increased sensitivity in patients with multi-treated bladders. In our experience, the side effects responsible for suspension occurred at the start of treatment in 7 cases out of 8. Our study demonstrates the safety of intravesical gemcitabine in patients with recurrent and multi-treated superficial TCC of the bladder.

Urinary stone size: comparison of abdominal plain radiography and noncontrast CT measurements.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare urinary stone size as measured by abdominal plain radiography (AXR) with stone size as measured by noncontrast three-dimensional spiral CT in patients with acute renal colic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients presenting to the emergency room of a single institution with urinary stones that were visible on both AXR and noncontrast spiral CT were identified. Two radiologists blinded to the clinical outcomes separately and randomly reviewed all films and measured maximum longitudinal (craniocaudal) and transverse (anteroposterior) stone diameters. The two-tailed paired Student's t-test was used to compare the sizes of each stone on AXR and CT. RESULTS: Over a 1-year period, 22 patients were identified with a total of 31 urinary stones visible on both AXR and CT. Nineteen stones were located in the kidney, three in the midureter, and nine in the distal ureter. The mean stone size by AXR was 6.1 mm (range 2-13 mm; SD +/- 1.95) in the longitudinal axis and 5.3 mm (range 2-11 mm; SD +/- 1.50) in the transverse axis. The mean stone size by CT was 6.9 mm (range 3-12 mm; SD +/- 1.95) in the longitudinal axis and 6.1 mm (range 2-11 mm; SD +/- 1.50) in the transverse. The differences between AXR and CT measurements did not attain significance in either the longitudinal (p = 0.67) or the transverse (p = 0.25) axis. CONCLUSIONS: A CT scan provides estimates of stone size that are consistently greater than those of AXR in both the longitudinal and transverse axes. However, for stones between 2 and 13 mm in maximum diameter, these differences do not attain significance. In patients with a history of radiopaque stones in this size range, therefore, AXR may provide useful size data for clinical decision-making without concern about significant disparities between the two modalities. As AXRs are more expeditiously obtained, incur less direct costs, and expose patients to significantly lower doses of radiation than CT scans, they remain a useful adjunctive study in the work-up of nephrolithiasis.

Infundibular stenosis after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

PURPOSE: Acquired infundibular stenosis can develop after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. We review our experience with infundibular stenosis after this procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the records of patients diagnosed with infundibular stenosis after percutaneous nephrolithotomy was performed at our institution between 1995 and 2000. Analysis included medical history, urinary stone type, stone removal procedure technique, length and number, postoperative course, stenosis time to development location, severity and treatment, and treatment outcome. RESULTS: Infundibular stenosis developed in 5 of 223 percutaneous nephrolithotomy cases (2%) performed during this period. Medical history in affected patients included previous ipsilateral open pyelolithotomy, diabetes and morbid obesity in 2 each. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy were done through a standard 30Fr nephrostomy tract and all cases were terminated before complete stone removal. Mean operative time was 258 minutes, which was significantly greater than the mean operative time of 207 minutes in all cases of unilateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy (p = 0.03). Postoperatively nephrostomy tube drainage was done for a mean of 33 days (range 16 to 51). All patients underwent at least 1 additional percutaneous stone removal procedure after primary percutaneous nephrolithotomy and before stenosis was detected. The mean time to stenosis detection was 9 months (range 2 to 24). Stenosis generally developed in areas corresponding to previous sites of percutaneous access and the degree of narrowing ranged from mild to severe. Mild and moderate stenosis was managed by observation and endoscopic dilation in 2 each. Severe stenosis in 1 patient was associated with significantly impaired ipsilateral renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Infundibular stenosis is a rare complication of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. In this series it was associated with prolonged operative time, a large stone burden requiring multiple removal procedures and extended postoperative nephrostomy tube drainage. In most cases stenosis developed at previous access sites within 1 year of initial percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Mild and moderate cases may be treated with observation and endoscopic dilation, respectively, while severe cases may result in renal impairment.

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with concomitant pyelolithotomy.

PURPOSE: We present our experience with laparoscopic pyeloplasty plus pyelolithotomy in patients in whom stones were not the cause of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A transperitoneal approach was used for laparoscopic pyeloplasty and pyelolithotomy in 19 patients (20 renal units). Before ureteropelvic junction repair stones were extracted through a small pyelotomy that was eventually incorporated into the final pyeloplasty incision. Stones in the renal pelvis were removed with rigid graspers under direct laparoscopic vision. A flexible cystoscope introduced through a port was used to extract stones in the calices. The renal pelvis was reconstructed based on the anatomy of the ureteropelvic junction. RESULTS: A median of 1 stone (range 1 to 28) was recovered. In 11, 8 and 1 patients the Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty, Y-V plasty and the Heinecke Mickulicz procedure were performed, respectively. At 3 months 2 patients had residual calculi for a procedural stone-free rate of 90%. There was no evidence of obstruction in 18 of the 20 cases (90%), as confirmed by negative diuretic scan or radiological improvement of hydronephrosis. At a mean followup of 12 months (range 3 to 57) 2 additional patients had recurrent stones for an overall long-term stone-free rate of 80% (16 of 20). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy is feasible when combined with pyeloplasty. Our results are comparable to those of stone removal during open pyeloplasty or percutaneous endopyelotomy. The advantages of open surgery appear to be maintained in this minimally invasive approach.