The American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) Risk Group Classification Can Be Used to Anticipate Functional Recovery Outcomes after the Surgical Treatment of Female Urinary Incontinence with Transobturator Suburethral Tape.

INTRODUCTION: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has an incidence of 15-80% in women. One of the most widely used surgical techniques for treatment is the placement of a suburethral transobturator tape (TOT). Although this technique has a relatively low morbidity rate, it is not exempt from intraoperative or postoperative complications, which can have an impact on functional recovery, understood as the return to routine life prior to the intervention. AIMS: To assess the time for functional recovery in women operated on for SUI by TOT; to identify complications and related factors, according to anaesthetic risk, which condition the time to functional recovery; and proposals for improvements in the prevention of possible complications and in reducing functional recovery time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A non-concurrent prospective observational multicenter study of 891 women undergoing TOT for stress urinary incontinence since 1 April 2003, who were successful in achieving urinary continence (completely dry). Study groups: GA (n = 443): patients with ASA I risk. GB (n = 306): patients with ASA II risk. GC (n = 142): patients with anaesthetic risk ASA III. Investigated variables: age, body mass index, follow-up time, secondary diagnoses, surgical history, obstetric-gynecological history, toxic habits, and complications derived from surgery: bleeding, pain, infection. Descriptive statistics, Student's t test, Chi2, Fisher, ANOVA, multivariate analysis, significance for p < 0.05. RESULTS: Mean age was 60.10 years (SD13.38), with no difference between groups. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.55 kg/m2 (SD 4.51), lowest in GA. GB had more HT (38.6%) than GC (23.23%), more type 2 diabetes (19.83% versus 10.56%), and more respiratory disorders (6.97% versus 2.11%). There were more women with anxiety in GB (19.3%) than in GC (6.33%) (p = 0.0221) and GA (10.51%) (p = 0.0004). There was more hypothyroidism in GB (16.08%) compared to GC (2.11%) and GA (9.07%). There was more history of curettage in GC (11.97%) versus GB (5.63%); and more pelvic surgery in GB (71.31%) and GC (66.9%) compared to GA (32.57%). There were more concomitant treatments with benzodiazepines in GC (27.46%) and GB (28.41%) than in GA (8.86%), and more parapharmacy treatments in GB (17.96%) than in GC (6.33%). Following the operation, 113 patients had some sign or symptom that required medical attention: in GA 48 (10.83%), in GB 49 (16.06%), in GC 16 (13.22%). Mean days until functional recovery in patients with complications: in GA 5.72 (SD2.05); bleeding 3 (SD1), pain 6.40 (SD1.34), and infection 7.33 (SD0.57), with fewer days for bleeding than for pain or infection. GB: 27.96 (SD 28.42), bleeding 3 (SD0), pain 46.69 (SD31.36), infection 10.83 (SD3.90); lowest for patients with bleeding. GC: 9.44 (SD 2.50); for bleeding 7.66 (SD2. 08), pain 10.66 (SD1.15), infection 10 (SD3.46); no differences. Overall, for women with bleeding, the time was 4.16 days (SD1.94); less in GA and GB than in GC. Pain, at 31.33 days (SD 30.70), was the factor that most delayed functional recovery; in GB women, it took longer to return to work due to pain (45.96, SD31.36) compared to GA (6.4, SD 1.34) and GC (10.66, SD1.15). In women with infection, overall mean time was 10.11 days (SD 3.61) with no difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Mean time for the return to normal activity in patients who underwent TOT for SUI is 5 days if there are no complications, and 16.91 days if there are any. The ASA-SP risk group classification can be used to anticipate functional outcomes. An ASA-PS risk-based functional recovery forecasting protocol should be adapted, especially ASA II patients who may present with long-term disabling postoperative pain. Preventive management measures are proposed that favour functional recovery.

Adenocarcinoma de próstata gigante con células en anillo de sello / Giant prostatic carcinoma with signet ring cells

No disponible

[Urinary tract lymphoepithelial carcinoma. Report of two cases and bibliographic review.] / Carcinoma linfoepitelial del tracto urinario. Presentación de dos casos y revision de la literatura.

OBJECTIVE: We report two cases of patients diagnosed with lymphoepithelioma-like carcinomas of the urinary tract. We review the literature of this rare entity. The objective is to clarify the clinical and therapeutic characteristics. METHODS: We present a retrospective review of medical records of two patients diagnosed with lymphoepithelioma-like carcinomas, one in the renal pelvis and the other in the bladder. We review the epidemiology, diagnosis and therapeutic alternatives. RESULTS: Case 1: A 74-year-old women with past medical history of left radical nephrectomy and retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy six years before for renal pelvis carcinoma type pure lymphoepithelioma-like, stage pT4R0pN1cM0. She received adjuvant chemotherapy with Cisplatin and Gemcitabine. Five years later, she presented tumor recurrence in the left ureteral meatus, this lesion was resected. The pathology reported a high-grade urothelial carcinoma with marked lymphoid component, stage pT1. At follow-up, one year after the last recurrence, the patient was asymptomatic. In tomography control, no local or distant recurrences were objectified. Case 2: A 82-year-old men with diagnosis of muscleinvasive bladder cancer. The tumor caused right obstructive uropathy without extracapsular, regional or remote extension. We performed a radical cystoprostatectomy with bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy and urinary diversión type cutaneous transureterostomy. The pathology reported a urothelial bladder carcinoma type mixed lymphoepithelioma-like, stage pT4aR1pN2cM0. At six months follow-up, the patient had liver and spleen lesions and retroperitoneal adenopathic nodes, all suggestive of metastases. He is currently receiving symptomatic treatment of their disease. CONCLUSIONS: We emphasize the clinical importance involved in the diagnosis of this entity. The diagnosis influence the aggressiveness of treatment and disease-specific survival. Therefore, concomitant transitional cell carcinoma defines the prognosis. The role of immunohistochemical staining is fundamental, allowing us to confirm the presence of the epithelial component.

Carcinoma linfoepitelial del tracto urinario. Presentación de dos casos y revisión de la literatura / Urinary tract lymphoepithelial carcinoma. Report of two cases and bibliographic review

OBJETIVO: Presentar dos casos de pacientes diagnosticados de carcinomas linfoepiteliales del tracto urinario. Realizamos una revisión de la literatura de esta infrecuente entidad, con el fin de aclarar las características clínicas y terapéuticas. MÉTODOS: Revisión retrospectiva de la historia clínica de dos pacientes diagnosticados de carcinomas linfoepiteliales, uno en pelvis renal y el otro en vejiga. RESULTADOS: Caso 1: Mujer de 74 años. Se le realiza una nefrectomía radical izquierda y linfadenectomía retroperitoneal por carcinoma de pelvis renal tipo linfoepitelioma like puro, estadio pT4R0pN1cM0. Recibe quimioterapia adyuvante. A los cinco años presenta recidiva tumoral en el meato ureteral izquierdo que se reseca; es informado como carcinoma uroterial de alto grado, con marcado componente linfoide, estadio pT1. Al año de seguimiento de la recidiva la paciente se encuentra asintomática y sin recaída local ni a distancia. Caso 2: Varón de 82 años diagnosticado de carcinoma vesical infiltrante. Se le realiza una cistoprostatectomía radical con linfadenectomía pélvica y derivación urinaria. El resultado es un carcinoma urotelial de vejiga tipo linfoepitelioma- like puro, estadio pT4aR1pN2cM0. A los seis meses se objetiva la aparición de metástasis de órganos sólidos y ganglionares. Actualmente se encuentra con tratamiento sintomático de su enfermedad. CONCLUSIONES: Destacar la importancia clínica que implica el diagnóstico de esta entidad, ya que puede influir en el tratamiento y la supervivencia específica de la enfermedad, siendo el carcinoma uroterial concomitante el que marque el pronóstico. El papel que desempeñan las tinciones inmunohistoquímicas es fundamental, ya que nos permiten confirmar la presencia del componente epitelial

OBJECTIVE: We report two cases of patients diagnosed with lymphoepithelioma-like carcinomas of the urinary tract. We review the literature of this rare entity. The objective is to clarify the clinical and therapeutic characteristics. METHODS: We present a retrospective review of medical records of two patients diagnosed with lymphoepitheliomalike carcinomas, one in the renal pelvis and the other in the bladder. We review the epidemiology, diagnosis and therapeutic alternatives. RESULTS: Case 1: A 74-year-old women with past medical history of left radical nephrectomy and retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy six years before for renal pelvis carcinoma type pure lymphoepithelioma-like, stage pT4R0pN1cM0. She received adjuvant chemotherapy with Cisplatin and Gemcitabine. Five years later, she presented tumor recurrence in the left ureteral meatus, this lesion was resected. The pathology reported a high-grade urothelial carcinoma with marked lymphoid component, stage pT1. At follow-up, one year after the last recurrence, the patient was asymptomatic. In tomography control, no local or distant recurrences were objectified Case 2: A 82-year-old men with diagnosis of muscleinvasive bladder cancer. The tumor caused right obstructive uropathy without extracapsular, regional or remote extension. We performed a radical cystoprostatectomy with bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy and urinary diversión type cutaneous transureterostomy. The pathology reported a urothelial bladder carcinoma type mixed lymphoepithelioma-like, stage pT4aR1pN2cM0. At six months follow-up, the patient had liver and spleen lesions and retroperitoneal adenopathic nodes, all suggestive of metastases. He is currently receiving symptomatic treatment of their disease. CONCLUSIONS: We emphasize the clinical importance involved in the diagnosis of this entity. The diagnosis influence the aggressiveness of treatment and disease-specific survival. Therefore, concomitant transitional cell carcinoma defines the prognosis. The role of immunohistochemical staining is fundamental, allowing us to confirm the presence of the epithelial component

Urinary tract endometriosis: clinical, diagnostic, and therapeutic aspects.

OBJECTIVES: To describe our experience at La Paz University Hospital with 12 patients with urinary tract endometriosis, an uncommon pathologic finding, the most extensive series published by Spanish investigators to our knowledge. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 12 cases of urinary tract endometriosis diagnosed from 1993 to 2008. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 37.75 years. Of the 12 patients, 5 had bladder involvement and 7 had ureteral involvement, 2 bilateral, 2 left, and 3 right. In those with bladder endometriosis, the diagnosis was made by cystoscopy and biopsy in 4 patients. Treatment consisted of laparoscopic hysterectomy and partial cystectomy in 1 patient and exploratory laparotomy, transvesical resection, and transurethral resection of the bladder in 3 patients. One of the patients who underwent transurethral resection of the bladder experienced 2 relapses. The first relapse was treated with transurethral resection of the bladder and the second with laparoscopic partial cystectomy. In the patients with ureteral endometriosis, the diagnosis was mainly established by magnetic resonance imaging. Treatment consisted of ureteroneocystostomy in 5 patients (bilateral in 1) and laparoscopic ureterolysis in 2, with later ureteral resection and end-to-end anastomosis in 1 of them. The patient who underwent bilateral ureteroneocystostomy finally required right autotransplantation because of early ureteral relapses. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary tract endometriosis is an uncommon pathologic finding. Surgery is the treatment of choice. We believe partial cystectomy should be considered as an initial option in selected cases, depending on the extent and location of lesions. For cases of ureteral endometriosis, the initial technique depends on the location and depth of the lesion.

[Paraurethral ballon implantation in the treatment of male urinary incontinence. La Paz University Hospital experience]. / Implante de balones parauretrales como tratamiento de la incontinencia urinaria masculina. Experiencia del Hospital Universitario La Paz.

OBJECTIVES: We want to show our experience with paraurethral balloon implantation in the treatment of male urinary incontinence. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our series from March 2003 to March 2007, including 69 male patients with urinary incontinence, most of them after radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: 6 patients did not have their first follow-up visit after surgery. Mean follow-up was 22 months (3-48). 57.14% of the patients (36/63 do not need pads, and 12.69% use one safety pad (8/63); therefore 69.83% (44/63) of the patients are dry or use one safety pad. If we stratify patients by incontinence severity, 81.25% of the patients with mild incontinence and 59.25% with moderate incontinence are dry. Nevertheless, only 35% of the patients with severe incontinence are dry (no protection). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, we believe that paraurethral balloon implantation could be the first therapeutic option for mild and moderate male urinary incontinence.

Implante de balones parauretrales como tratamiento de la incontinencia urinaria masculina. Experiencia del Hospital Universitario la Paz / Paraurethral balloon implantation in the treatment of male urinary incontinence. La Paz University Hospital experience

Objetivo: Queremos expresar nuestra experiencia con el implante de balones parauretrales, como tratamiento de la incontinencia urinaria masculina. Métodos: Hemos revisado de forma retrospectiva nuestra serie desde marzo del 2003 a marzo del 2007, que incluye a 69 pacientes con incontinencia urinaria masculina, la mayoría tras prostatectomía radical. Resultados: 6 pacientes están pendientes de su primera revisión tras la cirugía. Con un seguimiento medio de 22 meses (3-48) el 57.14% de los pacientes (36/63) no precisan protección y el 12.69% usan una compresa de seguridad (8/63), por tanto el 69.83% (44/63) de los pacientes están secos o usan una compresa de seguridad. Si estratificamos a los pacientes según el grado de su incontinencia, el 81,25% de los pacientes con incontinencia leve están secos y el 59.25% de los pacientes en el grupo de incontinencia moderada. Sin embargo, solo el 35% de los pacientes con incontinencia severa están secos (sin protección). Conclusión: Según nuestra experiencia, pensamos que el implante de balones parauretrales podría ser la primera opción terapéutica para la incontinencia urinaria masculina leve y moderada (AU)

Objectives: We want to show our experience with paraurethral balloon implantation in the treatment of male urinary incontinence. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our series from March 2003 to March 2007, including 69 male patients with urinary incontinence, most of them after radical prostatectomy. Results: 6 patients did not have their first follow-up visit after surgery. Mean follow-up was 22 months (3-48). 57.14% of the patients (36/63 do not need pads, and 12.69% use one safety pad (8/63); therefore 69.83% (44/63) of the patients are dry or use one safety pad. If we stratify patients by incontinence severity, 81.25% of the patients with mild incontinence and 59.25% with moderate incontinence are dry. Nevertheless, only 35% of the patients with severe incontinence are dry (no protection). Conclusions: In our experience, we believe that paraurethral balloon implantation could be the first therapeutic option for mild and moderate male urinary incontinence (AU)

[Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus robotic]. / Prostatectomía radical laparoscópica versus robótica.

OBJECTIVES: laparoscopic surgery has demonstrated that it is a good alternative to conventional surgery for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Robotic surgery could be a therapeutic option. We try to evaluate both techniques, analyzing a series of parameters that allow us to describe the advantages and disadvantages of both techniques. METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search and reviewed the main series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic radical prostatectomy (RRP). The parameters analyzed for each techniques were: oncological results, functional results, blood loss, transfusion rates, surgical times, complications rates, learning curve and cost. RESULTS: Both techniques have the advantage of being minimally invasive, which results in better recovery and aesthetic results. The learning curve of the robotic prostatectomy is shorter, 10 to 20 cases in comparison with 50 to 60 for the LRP. Cost analysis is more favourable for LRP, with a single-use instrument expenditure of 533 dollars per patient in comparison with 1.705 dollars with the robot. The cost of the robot is 1.200.000 dollars plus 100.000 dollars of annual maintenance (1). Operative time was 182 minutes [ 14 1-250] for robotic surgery and 234 min. [151-453] for LRP. Within the same institution, like Montsouris, times are very similar: 155 min. for the RRP and 18 1 min. for the (LRP). Mean operative blood loss was 234 ml [75-500] for the robot and 482 ml [185-859] for the LRP depending on the technique employed and the institution. Complication rate is similar for both techniques. The percentage of positive surgical margins is 20.6% for LRP and 19.24% for RRP Long term results on the biochemical PSA recurrence cannot be given due to the short life of both techniques. Continence rates are 56-100% for LRP and 70-98% for RRP Potency rates are 25-82% for LRP and 79-100% for RRP It is difficult to evaluate hospital stay because it depends on the politics of the medical institutions; nevertheless, it seems there are not significant differences between techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Introoperative and postoperative advantages are comparable with both techniques. Robotic prostatectomy has a shorter learning curve. Prospective studies with longer follow-up are necessary to compare oncological and functional results. The cost of LRP is lower than RRP.

Prostatectomía radical laparoscópica versus robótica / Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus robotic

Objetivo: La cirugía laparoscópica ha demostrado ser una buena alternativa a la cirugía abierta para el tratamiento del cáncer de próstata localizado. La cirugía robótica podría ser una opción terapéutica. Pretendemos hacer una evaluación de ambas técnicas, analizando una serie de parámetros que nos permitan describir las ventajas e inconvenientes de ambas técnicas. Métodos: Hemos realizado una búsqueda en MED-LINE, revisando las mayores series de Prostatectomía Radical Laparoscópica (PRL) y Prostatectomía Radical Robótica (PRR)y hemos analizado los siguientes parámetros de cada técnica: resultados oncológicos, resultados funcionales, pérdida sanguínea, tasa de transfusión, tiempo quirúrgico, tasa de complicaciones, curva de aprendizaje y coste. Resultados: Ambas técnicas tienen la ventaja de ser mínimamente invasivas, con ventajas en la recuperación del paciente y en los resultados estéticos. La curva de aprendizaje es menor para la prostatectomía robótica, siendo de 10 a 20 casos para ésta y de 50 a 60 casos para la PRL. El análisis de los costes económicos es más favorable para la PRL que tiene un gasto en fungibles por paciente de 533 dólares, siendo éste de 1.705 dólares para la robótica. El precio del robot es de 1.200.000 dólares más un gasto anual de mantenimiento de 100.000 dólares. El tiempo operatorio es de 182 min. [141-250] para la robótica y de 234 min. [151-453] para la PRL. Dentro de una misma institución, como ocurre en Montsouris, los tiempos son muy parecidos tardando 155 min. para la robótica y 181 min. para la PRL (tabla 3). El sangrado medio operatorio es de 234 ml. [75-500] para la robótica y de 482 ml. [185-859] para la PRL, dependiendo de la técnica utilizada y de las distintas instituciones. El porcentaje de complicaciones es similar con ambas técnicas. El porcentaje de márgenes quirúrgicos positivos es de 20.6% para la PRL y del 19.24% para la robótica. No se pueden dar todavía resultados a largo plazo sobre recurrencia bioquímica del PSA debido a la corta existencia de ambas técnicas. La tasa de continencia para la PRL es de 56-100% y para la robótica del 70-98%. La tasa de potencia para la PRL es del 25-82% y para la robótica del 79-100%. No existen datos lo suficientemente claros para decir que existan diferencias significativas en cuanto a resultados funcionales. Es difícil evaluar la estancia postoperatoria ya que muchas veces depende de la política de la instituciones médicas, aunque en conjunto no parece que existan diferencias significativas entre ambas técnicas. Conclusiones: La ventajas intraoperatorias y postoperatorias son comparables con las dos técnicas. La prostatectomía robótica tiene una curva de aprendizaje más corta. Son necesarios estudios prospectivos con mayor seguimiento para poder comparar los resultados oncológicos y funcionales. El coste de la PRL es menor que el de la robótica (AU)

Objectives: Laparoscopic surgery has demonstrated that it is a good alternative to conventional surgery for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Robotic surgery could be a therapeutic option. We try to evaluate both techniques, analyzing a series of parameters that allow us to describe the advantages and disadvantages of both techniques. Methods: We performed a MEDLINE search and reviewed the main series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic radical prostatectomy (RRP). The parameters analyzed for each techniques were: oncological results, functional results, blood loss, transfusion rates, surgical times, complications rates, learning curve and cost. Results: Both techniques have the advantage of being minimally invasive, which results in better recovery and aesthetic results. The learning curve of the robotic prostatectomy is shorter, 10 to 20 cases in comparison with 50 to 60 for the LRP. Cost analysis is more favourable for LRP, with a single-use instrument expenditure of 533 dollars per patient in comparison with 1.705 dollars with the robot. The cost of the robot is 1.200.000 dollars plus 100.000 dollars of annual maintenance. Operative time was 182 minutes [141-250] for robotic surgery and 234 min. [151-453] for LRP. Within the same institution, like Montsouris, times are very similar: 155 min. for the RRP and 181 min. for the (LRP). Mean operative blood loss was 234 ml [75-500] for the robot and 482 ml [185-859] for the LRP, depending on the technique employed and the institution. Complication rate is similar for both techniques. The percentage of positive surgical margins is 20.6% for LRP and 19.24% for RRP. Long term results on the biochemical PSA recurrence cannot be given due to the short life of both techniques. Continence rates are 56-100% for LRP and 70-98% for RRP. Potency rates are 25-82% for LRP and 79-100% for RRP. It is difficult to evaluate hospital stay because it depends on the politics of the medical institutions; nevertheless, it seems there are not significant differences between techniques. Conclusions: Intraoperative and postoperative advantages are comparable with both techniques. Robotic prostatectomy has a shorter learning curve. Prospective studies with longer follow-up are necessary to compare oncological and functional results. The cost of LRP is lower than RRP (AU)