Evaluation and follow-up of antibody formation after CoronaVac vaccine.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to monitor the time-dependent change by evaluating the antibody levels at the 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, and 16th weeks after the second dose of the CoronaVac vaccine. METHODS: The study group (n=65) were between 21 and 60 years old and received two doses of the CoronaVac vaccine. Blood samples were collected after 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, and 16th weeks of the second dose of the vaccine administration. There was a coronavirus disease 2019 recovered group (n=29) who were SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR test result positive before the vaccination period, and no coronavirus disease 2019 history group (n=36). Age, BMI, gender, smoking, comorbidity, coronavirus disease 2019 contact history, and working in the coronavirus disease 2019 service history of the individuals were recorded. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found in the descriptive findings of the individuals according to coronavirus disease 2019 recovered group and no coronavirus disease 2019 history group. It was observed that antibody levels in the coronavirus disease 2019 recovered group were found to be higher for each period of serum collection compared to the no coronavirus disease 2019 history group, which were statistically significant. The distribution curves of the antibody levels according to the timing of blood collection in coronavirus disease 2019 recovered group, no coronavirus disease 2019 history group, and total subjects were extrapolated, and it was observed that the estimated time for the antibodies to reach the threshold value of the test was 214, 145, and 166 days after vaccination. CONCLUSION: It is important to make booster doses, as the CoronaVac vaccine will lose its effect after the fifth month due to the decrease in Ab levels. In addition, since the antibody levels decrease later in those who have a history of coronavirus disease 2019 infection and are vaccinated, individuals who have no previous history of coronavirus disease 2019 should be given priority for vaccination.

Does ureteral access sheath affect the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether or not using a ureteral access sheath (UAS) affects the perioperative outcomes after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) performed in patients with renal stones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational study was carried out using data of 60 patients who underwent RIRS with the diagnosis of renal stones <2 cm between February 2017 and November 2017 at our institution. The data of the 60 patients were registered prospectively during the study period. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether a UAS was used (Group 1-30 patients) or not (Group 2-30 patients) during RIRS. Perioperative outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The stone burdens of the patients in Group 1 and in Group 2 were 76.59 mm2 and 62.19 mm2, respectively (p = .160). There was no statistically significant difference in SFR (p = 1.000), complication rates (p = .418), and operation time (p = .411) between both groups, except for the fact that postoperative pain intensity levels using the VAS were slightly higher in Group 2 (4.13 ± 2.37 vs. 5.33 ± 1.89, p = .064). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, we showed that similar success and acceptable complication rates can be achieved without using UAS compared to using UAS during RIRS. However, using UAS may provide an advantage in reducing postoperative pain after RIRS.

Evaluation and follow-up of antibody formation after CoronaVac vaccine

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to monitor the time-dependent change by evaluating the antibody levels at the 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, and 16th weeks after the second dose of the CoronaVac vaccine. METHODS: The study group (n=65) were between 21 and 60 years old and received two doses of the CoronaVac vaccine. Blood samples were collected after 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, and 16th weeks of the second dose of the vaccine administration. There was a coronavirus disease 2019 recovered group (n=29) who were SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR test result positive before the vaccination period, and no coronavirus disease 2019 history group (n=36). Age, BMI, gender, smoking, comorbidity, coronavirus disease 2019 contact history, and working in the coronavirus disease 2019 service history of the individuals were recorded. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found in the descriptive findings of the individuals according to coronavirus disease 2019 recovered group and no coronavirus disease 2019 history group. It was observed that antibody levels in the coronavirus disease 2019 recovered group were found to be higher for each period of serum collection compared to the no coronavirus disease 2019 history group, which were statistically significant. The distribution curves of the antibody levels according to the timing of blood collection in coronavirus disease 2019 recovered group, no coronavirus disease 2019 history group, and total subjects were extrapolated, and it was observed that the estimated time for the antibodies to reach the threshold value of the test was 214, 145, and 166 days after vaccination. CONCLUSION: It is important to make booster doses, as the CoronaVac vaccine will lose its effect after the fifth month due to the decrease in Ab levels. In addition, since the antibody levels decrease later in those who have a history of coronavirus disease 2019 infection and are vaccinated, individuals who have no previous history of coronavirus disease 2019 should be given priority for vaccination.

Does the Distance of the Tumor from the Surgical Margin Affect Biochemical Recurrence in Patients with Pathological Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of the distance between tumor and surgical margin on biochemical recurrence in patients with organ-confined prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The data of 208 patients, who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2012-2018, were retrospectively analyzed. The surgical margin status of 147 pathologically organ-confined patients was categorized as positive, close ( < 1mm) and negative. Surgical margin status and parameters affecting biochemical recurrence were examined. Furthermore, multivariate analysis was done to determine the parameters associated with biochemical recurrence. RESULTS: Biochemical recurrence was detected in 21 (14.2%) of 147 patients. 38 (27.9%) men had negative surgical margins, 68 (46.2%) had close surgical margins and 41 (25.9%) had positive surgical margins. Tumor volume and ISUP grade were found to be statistically significant for positive surgical margin and close surgical margin patients compared to negative surgical margin patients. Close surgical margin was not statistically associated with biochemical recurrence. Preoperative high PSA (p < 0.001) and positive surgical margin (p=0.021) were independent risk factors for biochemical recurrence. CONCLUSION: According to our results, it is not necessary to include the presence of a close surgical margin in the pathology reports in patients with pathological organ-confined tumors and negative surgical margins.

Comparison of scoring systems for predicting stone-free status and complications after retrograde intrarenal surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of scoring systems in predicting stone-free rates (SFR) and complications following retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 280 patients who underwent RIRS for kidney stones between 2016 and 2019. The Resorlu-Unsal Stone score (RUSS), Modified Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity (S-ReSC) score, and R.I.R.S. scoring system score were calculated for each patient who was enrolled in the study. Subsequently, stone scoring systems were compared as to their predictive capability for SFR using receiver-operating characteristic curves. Furthermore, multivariate analysis was done to determine whether the scoring systems associated with SFR and complications. RESULTS: The median patient age was 44 (35--56). The median RUSS, S-ReSC, and R.I.R.S scores were 0 (0-1), 1(1-2), and 6 (5-7), respectively. The overall SFR was 76.7%. The R.I.R.S. scoring system was found to have a higher predictive value in predicting postoperative SFR than the other two scoring systems (p < 0.001, AUC = 0,816). RUSS, R.I.R.S. score, and stone size were found to be independent predictive factors for SFR (p = 0.049, p = 0.024, p = 0.033, respectively). Complications were observed in 3.2%(9/280) of patients. Stone scoring systems were not statistically associated with complications. Operation duration was the only independent risk factor for complications (p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: The R.I.R.S. scoring system was found to have a higher predictive value than RUSS and S-ReSC to predict SFR following RIRS in our study. However, none of the stone scoring systems was directly proportional to complications of RIRS.

Does the use of fluoroscopy really affect the success rate of retrograde intrarenal surgery?

INTRODUCTION: Fluoroscopy is used for access sheath insertion and postoperative control during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) operation but with this technique both patient and operation team are exposed to radiation. The use of fluoroscopy is disadvantage for both patient and surgeon. Considering results of recent studies, it is clearly seen that fluoroscopy doesn't affect the success and complication rates of RIRS. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of both fluoroscopy and fluoroscopy-free groups, to show if there is a significant difference. METHODS: 385 patients were included in the study and they were divided into two groups. 284 patients were in Group I where fluoroscopy was used. 101 patients were in Group II and fluoroscopy was not used The success rates of primary operation and final success rates were compared. Data from both groups were evaluated objectively using classification systems and imaging methods. RESULTS: Success rates (primary and final) were higher in Group II, and that can be attributed to experience gained over time. Complication rate was lower and success rate was higher in fluoroscopy-free group. According to multivariate analysis, It is clear that the stone dimension is the foreground of the factors that influence the success, and the effect of the stone location is also observed. CONCLUSION: When considering the comparison of success and complication rates between two groups, it is clearly understood that the use of fluoroscopy has not a positive effect on results. According to the outcomes of our study, fluoroscopy-free RIRS can be performed with safe and high success rates. This outcome also leads an important point for avoiding unnecessary radiation exposure.

Does the use of fluoroscopy really affect the success rate of retrograde intrarenal surgery? / ¿Afecta el uso de fluoroscopia a la tasa de éxitos de la cirugía intrarrenal retrograda?

Introduction: Fluoroscopy is used for access sheath insertion and postoperative control during retrograde intrarenal surgery(RIRS) operation but with this technique both patient and operation team are exposed to radiation. The use of fluoroscopy is disadvantage for both patient and surgeon. Considering results of recent studies, it is clearly seen that fluoroscopy doesn’t affect the success and complication rates of RIRS. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of both fluoroscopy and fluoroscopy-free groups, to show if there is a significant difference. Methods: 385 patients were included in the study and they were divided into two groups. 284 patients were in Group I where fluoroscopy was used. 101 patients were in Group II and fluoroscopy was not used. The success rates of primary operation and final success rates were compared. Data from both groups were evaluated objectively using classification systems and imaging methods. Results: Success rates(primary and final) were higher in Group II, and that can be attributed to experience gained over time. Complication rate was lower and success rate was higher in fluoroscopy-free group. According to multivariate analysis, It is clear that the stone dimension is the foreground of the factors that influence the success, and the effect of the stone location is also observed. Conclusion: When considering the comparison of success and complication rates between two groups, it is clearly understood that the use of fluoroscopy has not a positive effect on results. According to the outcomes of our study, fluoroscopy-free RIRS can be performed with safe and high success rates. This outcome also leads an important point for avoiding unnecessary radiation exposure

Introduccion: La fluoroscopia se utiliza para la inserción de la vaina de acceso y el control postoperatorio durante la cirugía intrarrenal retrograda (CIR) pero con esta técnica tanto el paciente como el equipo quirúrgico se exponen a radiación. El uso de fluoroscopia es una desventaja para el paciente y el cirujano. Considerando los resultados de estudios recientes, está claramente demostrado que la fluoroscopia no afecta a las tasas de éxito y complicaciones de la CIR. En este estudio, queremos comparar los resultados de los grupos con y sin fluoroscopia, para ver si existen diferencias significativas. Métodos: Se incluyeron en el estudio 385 pacientes y se dividieron en dos grupos. 284 pacientes estaban en el grupo I que utilizaba fluoroscopia. 101 pacientes se incluyeron en el grupo II en el que no se utilizó. Se compararon las tasas de éxito de la operación primaria y al final del proceso. Los datos de ambos grupos fueron evaluados objetivamente utilizando los sistemas de clasificación y las pruebas de imagen. Resultados: Las tasas de éxito (primaria y final) fueron superiores en el grupo II, y esto se puede atribuir a la experiencia ganada con el tiempo. La tasa de complicaciones fue inferior y la de éxito superior en el grupo sin fluoroscopia. De acuerdo con el análisis multivariado, está claro que el tamaño de la piedra es el factor principal que afecta al éxito, y también se aprecia el efecto de su localización. Conclusiones: Cuando se considera la comparación entre los dos grupos del éxito y las complicaciones, se entiende claramente que la utilizacion de fluoroscopia no tiene un efecto positivo en los resultados. De acuerdo con los resultados de nuestro estudio, la CIR sin fluoroscopia puede hacerse con seguridad y altas tasas de éxitos. Este resultado también lleva a un importante apoyo para evitar la exposición innecesaria a radiación

Is retrograde intrarenal surgery replacing percutaneous nephrolithotomy as surgical treatment of stone disease: Our clinical experience.

OBJECTIVE: Urolithiasis prevalence is 2-20% according to different geographic characteristics in different populations. In this study, we aimed to present the distribution of operation numbers for both percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in terms of age and stone size in order to reveal the changes over the years. METHOD: Between January 2010 and March 2016, 1814 patients were operated for the treatment of renal stones. Patients were directed to the two different operations according to the surgeons' choices: RIRS or PCNL. Prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: In the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, the number of RIRS applied for the treatment of renal stones was 25, 87, 96, 147, 166, 174, and 66, respectively. RIRS was significantly preferred more than PCNL for stones <1.5cm. Examining the ages, there was no different data described as above for stone sizes. CONCLUSION: Despite RIRS is the new trend for treating stone disease, PCNL remains its important role for especially the larger stone sizes. RIRS is the raising trend for small sizes.

Is retrograde intrarenal surgery replacing percutaneous nephrolithotomy as surgical treatment of stone disease: our clinical experience / Está la cirugía intrarrenal retrógrada sustituyendo a la nefrolitectomía percutanea como el tratamiento de la Litiasis? Nuestra experiencia

OBJECTIVE: Urolithiasis prevalence is 2-20% according to different geographic characteristics in different populations. In this study, we aimed to present the distribution of operation numbers for both percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in terms of age and stone size in order to reveal the changes over the years. METHOD: Between January 2010 and March 2016, 1814 patients were operated for the treatment of renal stones. Patients were directed to the two different operations according to the surgeons' choices: RIRS or PCNL. Prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: In the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, the number of RIRS applied for the treatment of renal stones was 25, 87, 96, 147, 166, 174, and 66, respectively. RIRS was significantly preferred more than PCNL for stones <1.5 cm. Examining the ages, there was no different data described as above for stone sizes CONCLUSION: Despite RIRS is the new trend for treating stone disease, PCNL remains its important role for especially the larger stone sizes. RIRS is the raising trend for small sizes

OBJETIVO: La prevalencia de la litiasis está entre 2-20% de acuerdo con diferentes características geográficas en diferentes poblaciones. En este estudio, presentamos la distribución de frecuencias de la nefrolitotomía percutanea (NLPC) y la cirugía intrarrenal retrógrada (RIRS) en función de edad y tamaño de la piedra con el objetivo de analizar los cambios a lo largo de los años. MÉTODOS: Entre enero del 2010 y Marzo del 2016 1.814 pacientes fueron intervenidos para el tratamiento de litiasis renales. Los pacientes fueron dirigidos a cada una de las operaciones de acuerdo con las preferencias de los cirujanos: RIRS o NLPC. Se realizó una revisión retrospectiva de una base de datos recogida prospectivamente. RESULTADOS: En los años 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 y 2016 el número de RIRS aplicado en el tratamiento de las litiasis renales fue de 25, 87, 96, 147, 166, 174, y 66, respectivamente. La RIRS fue la opción preferida con una frecuencia significativamente mayor que la NLPC en litiasis de <1,5cm. Examinando la edad, no había diferencias en los datos igual que lo descrito anteriormente para el tamaño del cálculo. CONCLUSIONES: Aunque la RIRS es la nueva tendencia en el tratamiento de la litiasis, la NLPC conserva su importante rol, especialmente para piedras más grandes. La RIRS es la tendencia creciente para tamaños más pequeños

Predictive factors of bleeding among pediatric patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

The purpose of this study is to determine the perioperative risk factors for increased blood loss in children undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).We retrospectively reviewed the data on pediatric patients who had undergone PCNL for stone disease in our department. Blood loss estimation was quantified by measuring the changes in hematocrit plus the volume of red blood cells transfused. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors associated with increased blood loss after pediatric PCNL. Variables included patient, stone, and treatment parameters. The study group consisted of 105 renal units in 97 children with a median (interquartile range) age of 5 (3-9) years. On univariate linear regression analysis female gender (p = 0.030), absence of hydronephrosis (p = 0.013), increasing stone burden (p = 0.002), staghorn stone type (p = 0.013), multi-tract access (p < 0.001), and prolonged operative time (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with increased blood loss after pediatric PCNL. However, multivariate linear regression analysis demonstrated that the only independent risk factors for increased blood loss following pediatric PCNL were degree of hydronephrosis (B -1.329, 95% CI -2.451 to -0.208, p = 0.021), number of tracts (B 2.545, 95% CI 0.221-4.869, p = 0.032), and operative time (B 0.031, 95% CI 0.008-0.053, p = 0.007). Identifying pediatric patients at increased risk of bleeding following PCNL is crucial to minimize morbidity and hospital stay, and thus, the cost of treatment. Our study demonstrated that degree of hydronephrosis, number of tracts and operative time are important factors in reducing blood loss during pediatric PCNL.