Antegrade left ureterolithotripsy in a patient with previous psoas-hitch ureteral reimplantation.

A standard surgical treatment of distal ureteric defects is represented by the ureteroneocystostomy-ureteric reimplantation. However, the procedure involves an anatomical alteration of the ureterovesical (neo)junction that often hinders the retrograde catheterisation of the reimplanted ureter.We describe a case of antegrade ureterolithotripsy (AULT) in a psoas-hitch reimplanted ureter. A woman with severe left hydronephrosis supported by a subcentimetric proximal ureteral stone in a psoas-hitch reimplanted ureter was referred to our unit. Retrograde ureteroscopy was unsuccessful due to impossibility in incannulating the ureteral neo-orifice. Following the placement of a percutaneous nephrostomy, percutaneous AULT through ureteral sheath was successfully performed with complete treatment of the stone.AULT may represent a viable alternative in the management of ureteral stones when the upper urinary tract is not amenable to retrograde ureteroscopy. In experienced hands, the procedure is straightforward and may avoid the adoption of transabdominal approaches.

Holmium laser enucleation of prostate versus minimally invasive simple prostatectomy for large volume (≥120 mL) prostate glands: a prospective multicenter randomized study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and functional results between laparoscopic and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (LSP and RASP) and Holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in prostate volumes ≥120 mL. The primary endpoint was to investigate and compare minimally invasive techniques in the management of large prostate gland volume, and the secondary endpoint was to evaluate the frequency and type of postoperative complications according to Clavien Dindo Classification. METHODS: This multicenter study was conducted on male patients with LUTS associated with BPO candidates for surgical treatment. The surgery approach choice in relation to the prostatic volume ≥120 mL was HoLEP or minimally-invasive simple prostatectomy (LSP or RASP). All patients were prospectively randomized into three groups, according to a simple computed randomization: HoLEP, LSP and RASP groups. During the follow-up, all patients underwent postoperative control at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months from the surgical procedure. RESULTS: One hundred ten male patients were randomized in three homogeneous groups: 36 in LSP, 32 in RASP and 42 in HoLEP group. During the follow-up (mean 26.15 months), despite the significant improvement compared to baseline results, no significant differences were shown, between the groups in terms of functional and perioperative outcomes. The only statistically significant data was reported for catheterization time, that resulted longer in the LSP group than RASP and HoLEP groups (P=0.002). Furthermore, MISP resulted in longer hospitalization, and lower rate of patients with new-onset irritative symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective randomized study is the first to compare extraperitoneal LSP, RASP and HoLEP in the treatment of LUTS secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia for prostate volumes ≥120 mL. Our findings confirm the safety and efficacy of MISP, demonstrating its equivalence in functional outcomes and perioperative morbidity in comparison to HoLEP.

Simple enucleation versus radical nephrectomy in the treatment of pT1a and pT1b renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Simple tumor enucleation (TE) showed excellent oncologic results in large retrospective series. No study has compared oncologic outcomes after TE and radical nephrectomy (RN) for the treatment of pT1 renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The aim of the present study is to compare the oncologic outcomes after TE and RN in pT1 RCCs. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 475 patients who underwent TE or RN for pT1 RCC, N0, M0, between 1995 and 2007. TE was performed in 332 patients and RN in 143. Local recurrence, progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were the main outcomes of this study. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival functions, and differences were assessed with the log rank statistic. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were also used. RESULTS: The 5- and 10-year PFS estimates were 91.3 and 88.7% after RN and 95.3 and 92.8% after TE (P = NS), respectively. The 5- and 10-year CSS estimates were 92.1 and 89.4% after RN and 94.4% (5- and 10-year CSS) after TE (P = NS), respectively. No statistically significant differences between RN and TE were found after adjusting CSS probabilities according to age at surgery, grade, stage, or clear cell subtype. Surgical treatment was not a predictor of PFS or CSS by both univariate and multivariate analyses. The potential limitation of this study is that the data originate from a retrospective review. CONCLUSIONS: TE can achieve oncologic results similar to those of RN for the treatment of pT1 RCCs, provided tumors are carefully selected on the basis of their safe and complete removal.