The association between maternal hydronephrosis and acute flank pain during pregnancy: a prospective pilot-study.

PURPOSE: Maternal hydronephrosis may cause flank pain during pregnancy. We aimed to investigate the association between maternal hydronephrosis and flank pain intensity. METHODS: From 2014 to 2015, all consecutive women with singleton pregnancies, who presented at our tertiary center due to acute flank pain, were prospectively evaluated by renal ultrasonography and pain questionnaires. A visual analogue scale was used to assess pain intensity. The study had 90% power to detect a significant correlation between hydronephrosis and flank pain (Spearman's test). RESULTS: A total of 51 consecutive women with left-sided (13.7%), right-sided (64.7%) or bilateral (21.6%) pain were enrolled. The mean gestational age of these women, who presented due to their pain, was 27.5 ± 6.8 weeks at the time of consultation. The mean VAS score was 7.6 ± 2.2. In 43/51 (84.3%) women, hydronephrosis was found on renal sonograms. No correlation was found between the grade of hydronephrosis and pain intensity (p = 0.466; r= -0.28). Women delivered at a mean gestational age of 38.1 ± 2.4 weeks and their infants had a mean birthweight of 3138 ± 677 g. CONCLUSIONS: Hydronephrosis is a common finding among pregnant women with acute flank pain. The grade of hydronephrosis does not affect pain intensity. This study suggests normal pregnancy outcomes in these women.

A prospective evaluation of pain associated with stone passage, stents, and stent removal using a visual analog scale.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perception of colicky pain due to ureteral stones and double-J (DJ)-associated discomfort and to evaluate the role of clinical parameters that might influence the perception of pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From November 2011 to May 2012, 124 consecutive patients with colicky pain due to ureteral stones and ureteroscopic stone extraction underwent DJ stent placement. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess the pain at ureteral colic, during indwelling DJ stent, and at DJ stent removal. The association of clinical data with pain scores was also analyzed. RESULTS: Pain perception at the time of colic did not vary according to sex (P = .804), age (P = .674), or DJ stent length (P = .389). Stone size (<4 mm) was a predictor of a high VAS score (P = .001). Patients with recurrent stone formation had significantly less pain at the time of colic (P = .004), and DJ stent removal (P = .004) than those with the first instance of stone formation. The clinical experience at cystoscopic DJ stent removal influenced pain perception (P <.001). CONCLUSION: Using a VAS for the evaluation of pain perception is a valid method for the objectification of subjective discomfort. The VAS is an easy to administer scale and provides accurate information on the patients' status. Additional studies with larger cohorts focusing on pain perception using the VAS and other validated questionnaires are recommended to produce more consistent data.

Management of small renal masses: a review.

INTRODUCTION: Recently, small renal masses (SRMs) (< or =4 cm) are found more frequently, especially in the elderly and co-morbid patients. Standard treatment for SRMs is nephron-sparing surgery (NSS). New techniques like energy ablation and surveillance have been introduced. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overview of treatment options for SRMs, based mainly on the meta-analyses available for NSS, cryoablation, radio-frequency ablation (RFA), and surveillance. RESULTS: NSS for SRMs is the standard therapy with excellent cancer-specific survival rates up to 97%. Cryoablation was mainly performed laparoscopically, and RFA mainly percutaneously. Pretreatment biopsies were used frequently for cryoablation (80%) and less frequently for RFA (50%). Primary failure rate for cryoablation was 4.8% and for RFA 13%. Major complication rates for both procedures are around 5%. Based on 6-month post-ablative biopsies, non-contrast enhancement seems to be an effective surrogate marker after cryoablation, but not after RFA. Follow-up after energy ablation is too short to draw final conclusion. Data on surveillance are based on small, retrospective data with insufficient follow-up. Growth patterns during follow-up do not correlate with the underlying tumour entity. CONCLUSION: Standard therapy for SRMs is still NSS. Energy ablation should be reserved for the elderly patients with co-morbidities and surveillance for the elderly and infirm patients.