Dual-Energy Computed Tomography for Stone Type Assessment: A Pilot Study of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography with Five Indices.

Purpose: To assess the efficacy of dual-energy CT (DECT) in predicting the composition of urinary stones with a single index (dual energy ratio [DER]) and five indices. Methods: Patients undergoing DECT before active urolithiasis treatment were prospectively enrolled in the study. Predictions of stone composition were made based on discriminant analysis with a single index (DER) and five indices (stone density at 80 and 135 kV, Zeff [the effective atomic number of the absorbent material] of the stone, DER, dual-energy index [DEI] and dual-energy difference [DED]). After extraction, stone composition was evaluated by means of physicochemical analyses (X-ray phase analysis, electron microscopy, wet chemistry techniques, and infrared spectroscopy). Results: A total of 91 patients were included. For calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) stones, the sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of DECT with one index (DER) were 83.3%, 89.8%, and 86.8%, respectively; for calcium oxalate dihydrate (COD) and calcium phosphate stones-88.2%, 92.9%, and 91.2%, respectively; for uric acid stones-0%, 98.8% and 97.8%, respectively; for struvite stones-60%, 95.3%, and 93.4%, respectively. Discriminant analysis with five indices yielded the following sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy: 95.2%, 89.8%, and 92.3% for COM stones, 85.3%, 96.4%, and 92.3% for COD stones, and 100% in all three categories for both uric acid and struvite stones. Conclusions: DECT is a promising tool for stone composition assessment. It allowed for evaluation of chemical composition of all stone types with specificity and accuracy ranging from 85% to 100%. Five DECT indices have shown much better diagnostic accuracy compared to a single DECT index.

Repair of cystocele and apical genital prolapse using 6-strap mesh implant.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of surgical repair of anterior apical prolapse using the 6-strap mesh implant. STUDY DESIGN: The prospective study included 100 patients with genitourinary prolapse. We used advanced 6-strap mesh implant. The results were assessed at 1 (n = 100) and 12 (n = 93) months after surgery. Maximum follow-up was over 4 years. The anatomical outcomes according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system and intraoperative and postoperative complications were assessed. Stage II and higher prolapse was considered to be a recurrence. The quality of life and sexual function were assessed using Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory 20, Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire 12. RESULTS: Median age was 57 years (34-78 years (95% confidence interval)). All patients had stage III cystocele. The anterior vaginal wall descent in all the patients was associated with uterine descent: 37 (37%), stage II; 60 (60%), stage III; in 3 (3%), stage IV. In eight cases, postoperative de novo stress urinary incontinence developed. The quality of life improved in 93 (93%) women as judged by the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 data and in 87 (87%) women, according to the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7 data. The desirable anatomical result (⩽stage I according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system) was achieved in 97 (97%) patients. With the exception of mesh fragment excision due to erosion (grade 3a), all the complications were classified as grade I according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. CONCLUSION: Genitourinary prolapse repair using 6-strap mesh is efficacious and relatively safe. The method demonstrates good anatomical results in relation to both anterior and apical prolapses with relatively short-term complications.

Novel thulium fiber laser for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: A prospective comparison with conventional transurethral resection of the prostate.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of a novel thulium fiber laser for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate in patients with smaller glands (<80 cc). METHODS: A total of 51 patients underwent thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate, and 52 patients underwent monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate. All patients were assessed preoperatively, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively (International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urine flow rate, International Prostate Symptom Score-quality of life). Preoperative prostate volumes and prostate-specific antigen levels were comparable (P = 0.543 and P = 0.078, respectively). The complications were graded according to the Clavien classification. RESULTS: Mean surgery time was longer in the thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate group (46.6 ± 10.2 vs 39.9 ± 8.6 min, P < 0.001), while catheterization and hospital stay were greater in the transurethral resection of the prostate group (P < 0.001). At 12 months, there were no differences in functional outcomes (International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urine flow rate). Despite comparable prostate volumes at 12 months (P = 0.864), the prostate-specific antigen level in the thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate group (0.5 ± 0.5 ng/mL) was lower than in the transurethral resection of the prostate group (1.1 ± 1.0 ng/mL; P < 0.001). Hemoglobin and serum sodium decrease was lower in the thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate group (1.01 ± 0.4 g/dL and 1.1 ± 1.1 mmol/L) than in the transurethral resection of the prostate group (1.8 ± 0.8 g/dL and 4.1 ± 1.1 mmol/L; P < 0.001). Urinary incontinence rates at 12 months were comparable (P = 0.316). CONCLUSIONS: Thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate with novel thulium fiber laser in patients with smaller prostate glands (<80 cc) is comparable to transurethral resection of the prostate in voiding parameters improvement and complication rates. At the same time, the technique allows for a more substantial prostate-specific antigen decrease, indicating more complete removal of adenoma.

En bloc and two-lobe techniques for laser endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: retrospective comparative analysis of peri- and postoperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Various techniques can be used for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP): removal of all nodes as a single unit (en bloc) or a step-by-step removal of adenomatous nodes (two- and three-lobe techniques). The objective of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of en bloc and two-lobe techniques for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP). METHODS: Retrospective assessment included patients with bladder outlet obstruction (IPSS > 20, Qmax < 10) secondary to BPH treated from January 2013 to December 2018. All the patients were assessed prior to surgery, as well as at 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: The data of 1115 patients who underwent HoLEP or ThuFLEP were analyzed. Two techniques were used: en bloc (406 patients) and two-lobe (709 patients). Mean prostate volumes were comparable between groups. Mean surgery times (68.8 ± 30.6 min vs 67.4 ± 30.1 min; p = 0.604) and enucleation rates (1.9 ± 0.74 g/min vs 1.9 ± 0.69 g/min; p = 0.217) were also comparable. Morcellation rate was lower in en bloc patients with prostate > 150 cc (2.8 ± 1.1 g/min vs 3.7 ± 2.3 g/min; p < 0.001). At 6 months, no differences in functional outcomes (IPSS, PVR, Qmax and QoL) were found. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes and complication rates of en bloc and two-lobe EEP techniques were comparable. En bloc technique was found to have less favorable outcomes in morcellation rate for prostates > 150 cc. The choice of the technique should depend on surgeon's preferences.

Novel Thulium Fiber Laser for Enucleation of Prostate: A Retrospective Comparison with Open Simple Prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of novel thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuFLEP) vs conventional open simple retropubic prostatectomy (OP) for large volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent surgical treatment for large volume BPH (>80 cc) from 2015 to 2017. Preoperative patient examination included the assessment of functional parameters: International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), maximum urine flow rate (Qmax), and postvoid residual urine volume. The hemoglobin level was measured before and after the operation. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were included in the study. Of these, 40 patients underwent OP, and 90 patients underwent ThuFLEP. Groups were similar in terms of preoperative functional parameters (IPSS, QoL, and Qmax). The mean operative time was comparable for both procedures (p = 0.285) as well as the mass of adenomatous tissue resected (p = 0.412). Resection speed was comparable (OP-0.9 vs ThuFLEP-1.0 g/min, p = 0.52). Patients in OP had significantly longer catheterization time and length of hospital stay (9.0 days vs 3.3 days, p < 0.001). At 6 months, stress urinary incontinence rate were 1.1% after ThuFLEP and 2.5% after OP. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the equally high efficacy of both modalities for infravesical obstruction due to BPH, ThuFLEP is a minimally invasive modality that is associated with a shorter hospital stay, a significantly greater return to normal activities, and a considerable reduction in rehabilitation time. Our results demonstrated that the ThuFLEP is a highly efficacious, minimally invasive modality for the management of BPH in large volume glands (>80 cc).

Need for upper urinary tract stenting in cases of ureteral orifice injury during laser enucleation of the prostate.

INTRODUCTION: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) can be associated with marked intravesical protrusion, placing ureteral orifices at risk for injury during bladder outlet procedures. AIM: To determine whether ureteral stenting is necessary in cases of ureteral orifice injury during laser enucleation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study included 465 patients with bladder outlet obstruction (IPSS > 20, Qmax < 10) secondary to BPH who were managed with thulium fiber laser (ThuFLEP) or holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). In seven patients, the ureteral orifices were injured during surgery (3-HoLEP; 4-ThuFLEP). Three of the seven patients underwent intraoperative stenting of the upper urinary tract (1-HoLEP; 2-ThuFLEP). In four cases, stenting was not performed (2-HoLEP; 2-ThuFLEP). The follow-up period was 6 months. RESULTS: Postoperatively, none of the patients with a stent in the upper urinary tract exhibited signs of pelvicalyceal system (PCS) dilatation or inhibited urine flow from the kidney (assessed with abdominal ultrasound at 1, 3, 10, and 30 days after surgery). In two patients without stents, follow-up revealed no dilatation of the PCS. The other two patients without stents developed asymptomatic dilatation of the PCS (the pelvis-up to 1.5 cm; the calyx-up to 0.5 cm). At 1 month after surgery, no patients had dilatation of the PCS. CONCLUSIONS: Upper urinary tract stenting in cases of intraoperative ureteral orifice injury during laser enucleation of the prostate for BPH may not be warranted.