Establishing initial resting abdominal pressure in children undergoing urodynamics.

INTRODUCTION: The International Continence Society recommends zeroing of transducers to the atmospheric pressure for invasive urodynamics. The range of abdominal pressure relative to atmospheric pressure is well-known in adults but has not been described in children. This prospective observational study was carried out to establish baseline abdominal in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, observational study of 100 children aged 0-18 years undergoing invasive urodynamics using water-filled systems. Initial resting abdominal pressure, intravesical pressure and detrusor pressure were recorded in supine, sitting, and standing position (as age- and diagnosis-appropriate). This data was analyzed using SPSS 20.0.0 with regard to age, gender, height, weight, body mass index, and underlying diagnosis (classified as neurogenic or non-neurogenic). Nonparametric tests were used (2-sided p < 0.05, significant). RESULTS: Initial resting abdominal pressure (inter-quartile range) in children was between 5 and 15 cmH2 O in the supine, 13-20 cmH2 O in the sitting, and 15-21 cmH2 O in the standing position. These pressures were not consistently influenced by age, gender, height, weight or underlying diagnosis. The initial resting detrusor pressure was noted to be 0-4 cmH2 O without any difference based on posture. Limitations include use of two-tube technique, relatively small number of subjects across each age group, wide range of underlying diagnoses and need for manual smoothing of some traces. CONCLUSION: This study defines initial resting abdominal pressure at urodynamics in children and notes that, as with adults, it is possible to define widely applicable ranges regardless of individual characteristics. These pressures appear lower than those noted historically in adults.

Renal cortical transit time in the evaluation of prenatally detected presumed pelvi ureteric junction like obstruction: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Differentiating nonobstructive from obstructive dilatation of the kidney is a clinical dilemma in prenatally detected hydronephrosis. Many radionuclide renogram parameters have been used to differentiate obstructed from non-obstructed units, including cortical transit time (CTT). We evaluate the role of CTT in identifying obstruction through a systematic review. METHODS: A literature search of the MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, and MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE, Google scholar, Pub Med, and Cochrane Library was done using key words - radionuclide renogram, CTT, parenchymal transit time, cortical transit, renography to identify articles on the subject. The identified articles were assessed for appropriateness and reviewed. RESULTS: The initial search yielded a total of 1583 articles, after adding the articles from references and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria a total of 28 articles were selected. CTT showed good inter observer agreement in identifying obstruction. The use of CTT as a single parameter for determining the need for surgery and to identify those kidneys which will have functional improvement after surgery has been evaluated and has been found to be useful. CTT is best used in conjunction with ultrasonography to make clinical decisions. CONCLUSION: The commonly used visual method of estimating the CTT, is a promising parameter for the evaluation of prenatally detected pelviureteric junction obstruction. Further well-designed multicenter prospective studies are needed to establish it as the most specific parameter to differentiate obstructive from nonobstructive dilatation of the pelvicalyceal system.

Vesicovaginal fistula: Review and recent trends.

Vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) is an abnormal communication between the bladder and the vagina. Prompt diagnosis and timely repair are essential for successful management of these cases. As the clinical scenario is variable, it is difficult to frame uniform guidelines for the management of VVF. Hence, the management protocol is dependent on the treating surgeon and the available resources. Conservative methods should be used in carefully selected patients. Delayed repair is better than the early repair of VVF. Transvaginal route for repair is preferred as it has low morbidity, higher success rates, and minimal complications. Anticholinergics should be used in the postoperative period for better chance of bladder healing. When facilities are available, all the patients may be referred to a tertiary care center where expertise and advanced resources are available. Trained surgeons adapting the new trends should refine the art of VVF repair.

Can kidneys be saved in patients with urinary tuberculosis? A study in the era of modern chemotherapy and surgical armamentarium.

OBJECTIVE: To assess renal unit survival and factors affecting renal salvageability in a cohort of patients receiving modern medical and surgical therapy for urinary tuberculosis. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-center study including all patients diagnosed and treated as urinary tuberculosis between 2005 and 2015 at Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India. The primary outcome was time to renal unit non-salvageability (estimated glomerular filtration rate of <15 mL/min). RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 37.7 ± 11.3 years, 33% had microbiological and 73% had histopathological confirmation in addition to radiological diagnosis. The estimated median survival of the involved renal units (n = 187) on Kaplan-Meier estimate was 75 months (95% CI 39-99). On multivariate analysis, renal units with initial split function >15 mL/min had fivefold the survival estimate as compared with those ≤15 mL/min (P < 0.001); the presence of one, two and three infundibular strictures had a 2.2-, 2.9- and fivefold higher hazard of renal unit loss respectively, and lower ureteric strictures had fivefold longer estimated survival (P = 0.015) after treatment. Renal units in the reconstruction group had 5.44-fold (95% CI 2.71-10.88, P < 0.001) longer survival than the permanent diversion group, with a mean change in split function of +0.76 (±16.11) mL/min, versus -5.61 (±10.87) mL/min respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Loss of renal units is a function of time despite modern treatment. Baseline renal unit function, site of ureteric involvement and extent of infundibular involvement on imaging are helpful in predicting the duration of renal salvageability. When feasible, reconstruction is better at renal function preservation.

Phosphodiesterase inhibitors for lower urinary tract symptoms consistent with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of phosphodiesterase inhibitors (PDEI) compared to placebo and other standard of care drugs i.e alpha blockers (AB) and 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARI) in men with LUTS consistent with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and clinical trials registries of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (updated 2 August 2018). Citation tracking and hand-searching of abstracts and conference proceedings was done. We also attempted to contact the study authors in case additional information was needed. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing PDEI versus placebo, AB, or 5-ARI used for at least four weeks in men with BPH-LUTS were included. Three review authors independently screened the literature and extracted data. Primary outcomes were effects on urinary symptoms as assessed by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS-total; score ranging from 0 to 35, with higher values reflecting more symptoms), urinary bother as assessed by the Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Impact Index (BPHII; score ranging from 0 to 13, with higher values reflecting more bother), and adverse events (AE). We used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence. We considered short-term (up to 12 weeks) and long-term (12 weeks or longer) results separately. RESULTS: We included a total of 16 randomised trials in this review. Primary outcomes: PDEI versus placebo: PDEI may result in a small improvement in IPSS-total score (mean difference (MD) 1.89 lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.27 lower to 1.50 lower; n = 4293; low-quality evidence) compared to placebo, and may reduce the BPHII score slightly (MD 0.52 lower, 95% CI 0.71 lower to 0.33 lower; n = 3646; low-quality evidence). Rates of AEs may be increased (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.67; n = 4386; low-quality evidence). This corresponds to 95 more AEs per 1000 participants (95% CI 47 more to 151 more per 1000). Study results were limited to a treatment duration of six to 12 weeks. PDEI versus AB: PDEI and AB probably provide similar improvement in IPSS-total score (MD 0.22 higher, 95% CI 0.49 lower to 0.93 higher; n = 933; moderate-quality evidence) and may have a similar effect on BPHII score (MD 0.03 higher, 95% CI 1.10 lower to 1.16 higher; n = 550; low-quality evidence) and AE (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.30; n = 936; low-quality evidence). This corresponds to 71 more AEs per 1000 participants (95% CI 41 fewer to 264 more per 1000). Study results were limited to a treatment duration of six to 12 weeks. PDEI and AB versus AB : The combination of PDEI and AB may provide a small improvement in IPSS-total score (MD 2.56 lower, 95% CI 3.92 lower to 1.19 lower; n = 193; low-quality evidence) compared to AB alone. We found no evidence for BPHII scores. AE may be increased (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.17; n = 194; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to 235 more AE per 1000 participants (95% CI 69 more to 542 more per 1000). Study results were limited to treatment duration of four to 12 weeks. PDEI and AB versus PDEI alone: The combination of PDEI and AB may provide a small improvement in IPSS-total (MD 2.4 lower, 95% CI 6.47 lower to 1.67 higher; n = 40; low-quality evidence) compared to PDEI alone. We found no data on BPHII or AE. Study results were limited to a treatment duration of four weeks. PDEI and 5-ARI versus 5-ARI alone: in the short term (up to 12 weeks), the combination of PDEI and 5-ARI probably results in a small improvement in IPSS-total score (MD 1.40 lower, 95% CI 2.24 lower to 0.56 lower; n = 695; moderate-quality evidence) compared to 5-ARI alone. We found no evidence on BPHII scores or AE. In the long term (13 to 26 weeks), the combination of PDEI and 5-ARI likely results in a small reduction in IPSS-total score (MD 1.00 less, 95% CI 1.83 lower to 0.17 lower; n = 695; moderate-quality evidence). We found no evidence about effects on BPHII scores. There may be no difference in rates of AE (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.36; n = 695; low-quality evidence). This corresponds to 19 more AE per 1000 participants (95% CI 43 fewer to 98 more per 1000). We found no trials comparing other combinations of treatments or comparing different PDEI for BPH-LUTS. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, PDEI likely leads to a small reduction in IPSS-total and BPHII sores, with a possible increase in AE. There may be no differences between PDEI and AB with regards to improvement in IPSS-total, BPHII, and incidence of AE. There appears to be no added benefit of PDEI combined with AB compared to PDEI or AB or PDEI combined with 5-ARI compared to ARI with regards to urinary symptoms. Most evidence was limited to short-term treatment up to 12 weeks and of moderate or low certainty.

Phosphodiesterase inhibitors for lower urinary tract symptoms consistent with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) refers to non-malignant enlargement of the prostate gland that may cause bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Alpha-blockers (ABs) and 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) are the mainstay of medical treatment. Recently, phosphodiesterase inhibitors (PDEIs) that so far have been used mainly to treat erectile dysfunction were introduced to treat male LUTS. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of PDEIs compared to placebo and other standard of care drugs (ABs and 5-ARIs) in men with LUTS consistent with BPH. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and clinical trials registries of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (updated 2 August 2018). We performed citation tracking and handsearching of abstracts and conference proceedings. We also contacted study authors to ask for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion in this systematic review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PDEIs versus placebo, ABs, or 5-ARIs for at least four weeks in men with BPH-LUTS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently screened the literature and extracted data. Primary outcomes were effects on urinary symptoms as assessed by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS-total; score ranging from 0 to 35, with higher values reflecting more symptoms), urinary bother as assessed by the Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Impact Index (BPHII; score ranging from 0 to 13, with higher values reflecting more bother), and adverse events (AEs). We used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence. We considered short-term (up to 12 weeks) and long-term (12 weeks or longer) results separately. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 16 randomised trials in this review. The results for primary outcomes are as follows.PDEI versus placebo: PDEIs may result in a small improvement in IPSS-total score (mean difference (MD) 1.89 lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.27 lower to 1.50 lower; n = 4293; low-quality evidence) compared to placebo, and may reduce the BPHII score slightly (MD 0.52 lower, 95% CI 0.71 lower to 0.33 lower; n = 3646; low-quality evidence). Rates of AEs may be increased (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.67; n = 4386; low-quality evidence). This corresponds to 95 more AEs per 1000 participants (95% CI 47 more to 151 more per 1000). Study results were limited to a treatment duration of six to 12 weeks.PDEI versus AB: PDEIs and ABs probably provide similar improvement in IPSS-total score (MD 0.22 higher, 95% CI 0.49 lower to 0.93 higher; n = 933; moderate-quality evidence) and may have a similar effect on BPHII score (MD 0.03 higher, 95% CI 1.10 lower to 1.16 higher; n = 550; low-quality evidence) and AEs (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.30; n = 936; low-quality evidence). This corresponds to 71 more AEs per 1000 participants (95% CI 41 fewer to 264 more per 1000). Study results were limited to a treatment duration of six to 12 weeks.PDEI and AB versus AB alone: the combination of PDEI and AB may provide a small improvement in IPSS-total score (MD 2.56 lower, 95% CI 3.92 lower to 1.19 lower; n = 193; low-quality evidence) compared to AB alone. We found no evidence for BPHII scores. AEs may be increased (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.17; n = 194; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to 235 more AEs per 1000 participants (95% CI 69 more to 542 more per 1000). Study results were limited to treatment duration of four to 12 weeks.PDEI and AB versus PDEI alone: the combination of PDEI and AB may provide a small improvement in IPSS-total (MD 2.4 lower, 95% CI 6.47 lower to 1.67 higher; n = 40; low-quality evidence) compared to PDEI alone. We found no data on BPHII or AEs. Study results were limited to a treatment duration of four weeks.PDEI and 5-ARI versus 5-ARI alone: in the short term (up to 12 weeks), the combination of PDEI and 5-ARI probably results in a small improvement in IPSS-total score (MD 1.40 lower, 95% CI 2.24 lower to 0.56 lower; n = 695; moderate-quality evidence) compared to 5-ARI alone. We found no evidence on BPHII scores or AEs. In the long term (13 to 26 weeks), the combination of PDEI and 5-ARI likely results in a small reduction in IPSS-total score (MD 1.00 less, 95% CI 1.83 lower to 0.17 lower; n = 695; moderate-quality evidence). We found no evidence about effects on BPHII scores. There may be no difference in rates of AEs (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.36; n = 695; low-quality evidence). This corresponds to 19 more AEs per 1000 participants (95% CI 43 fewer to 98 more per 1000).We found no trials comparing other combinations of treatments or comparing different PDEI agents. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, PDEI likely leads to a small reduction in IPSS-total and BPHII sores, with a possible increase in AEs. There may be no differences between PDEI and AB with regards to improvement in IPSS-total, BPHII, and incidence of AEs. There appears to be no added benefit of PDEI combined with AB compared to PDEI or AB alone or PDEI combined with 5-ARI compared to ARI alone with regards to urinary symptoms. Most evidence was limited to short-term treatment up to 12 weeks and of moderate or low certainty.

Stem cell in urology-are we at the cusp of a new era?

Stem cell therapy can potentially disrupt conventional medicine as we practice it today. Stem cells can self-renew and differentiate and by this, repair and in certain conditions regenerate damaged tissue. In the past two decades, there has been significant research into its value in several chronic urological conditions for which conventional therapy is unsatisfactory. Stem cell therapy has been tried on animal models of bladder dysfunction, stress urinary incontinence (SUI), erectile dysfunction and urethral injury and certain preclinical studies have had very encouraging results. Yet despite this explosion of knowledge about the nature and value of stem cells, translation of research into the clinical domain has been slow. In addition, lack of regulation of stem cell therapy has resulted in indiscriminate, unscientific administration of stem cell therapy to patients. This review looks into the advances in the use of stem cells in urological practice, the recent regulatory guidelines that have been introduced and what the future holds for this exciting branch.

A prospective randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to assess the effect of diuretics on shockwave lithotripsy of calculi.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of diuretics with shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) on the treatment of renal and upper ureteric calculi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with a solitary non-obstructive radio-opaque renal or upper ureteric calculus with normal renal function were included. They were prospectively randomised to receive either SWL with placebo or SWL with diuretics (40 mg parenteral furosemide) in a double-blind manner with a sample size of 48 patients in each arm. The primary outcomes were the SWL success and failure rates. The secondary outcomes were the number of shocks and sessions. RESULTS: Complete fragmentation was achieved in 89.6% of the patients in the furosemide arm as compared to 81.3% in the placebo arm. Clearance was achieved in 77.1% of the patients in the furosemide arm as compared to 70.8% in the placebo arm. The number of shocks and the number of sessions were higher in the placebo arm. These differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The use of diuretics along with SWL treatment of renal and upper ureteric calculi does not show a statistically significant improvement in fragmentation or clearance.

Does asymptomatic prostatic inflammation alter the outcome of transurethral resection of prostate?

INTRODUCTION: There is contradictory evidence in literature with respect to the association of asymptomatic prostatic inflammation on biopsy with complications of Transurethral Resection of Prostate. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the association of prostatitis in biopsy specimens of patients undergoing transurethral resection of prostate with bladder neck contracture (the primary end point) and other complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who had undergone transurethral resection at a single centre between 2005 and 2010, with a minimum of 3 months follow-up were included. The study population was divided into two cohorts: those with inflammation on prostatic biopsy (Group A) and those without (Group B). These two groups were compared with respect to demographic data and pre-operative and intraoperative confounding factors. Immediate complications were documented using the modified Clavien-Dindo system and compared. Long term complications like bladder neck contracture, meatal stenosis, urethral stricture, and recurrent adenoma were also compared. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable except for Group A patients having a higher median resected weight (20 vs. 14 gms, p = 0.009). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the rate of bladder neck contracture and other long-term and short term complications on univariate and multivariate analysis. Larger resected weight of gland was associated with lower rate of bladder neck contracture on multivariate analysis (p = 0.019, Odds ratio: 0.937). CONCLUSIONS: Presence of histologically confirmed prostatic inflammation is not associated with bladder neck contracture or other complications following transurethral resection. Smaller resected prostatic weight was associated with higher incidence of bladder neck contracture.

Urethral duplication with unusual cause of bladder outlet obstruction.

A 12-year-old boy presented with poor flow and recurrent urinary tract infections following hypospadias repair at the age of 3 years. The evaluation revealed urethral duplication with a hypoplastic dorsal urethra and patent ventral urethra. He also had duplication of the bladder neck, and on voiding cystourethrogram the ventral bladder neck appeared hypoplastic and compressed by the dorsal bladder neck during voiding. The possibility of functional obstruction of the ventral urethra by the occluded dorsal urethra was suspected, and he underwent a successful urethro-urethrostomy.

Repeat Excision and Primary Anastomotic Urethroplasty for Salvage of Recurrent Bulbar Urethral Stricture.

PURPOSE: We compared the results of initial excision and primary anastomosis urethroplasty to the excision and primary anastomosis outcomes of other challenging reoperative clinical settings, including secondary cases (prior urethroplasty of any technique other than excision and primary anastomosis) and repeat cases (prior excision and primary anastomosis). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our database of patients who underwent excision and primary anastomosis urethroplasty for bulbar urethral stricture at our tertiary referral center from 2007 to 2014. Patients without available data and those with a history of lichen sclerosus, radiation, pelvic fracture urethral injuries, distal strictures and/or hypospadias were excluded from analysis. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared between those undergoing initial, secondary, and repeat excision and primary anastomosis urethroplasty for bulbar urethral stricture. RESULTS: Among 898 urethroplasties performed during the study period we identified 305 men who underwent excision and primary anastomosis urethroplasty of the bulbar urethra, including an initial procedure in 268 of 305 (88%) and reoperation in 37 (12%). Of patients with reoperation 18 of 37 (49%) underwent secondary excision and primary anastomosis following a different type of prior urethroplasty and 19 (51%) underwent repeat excision and primary anastomosis. Repeat excision and primary anastomosis in the bulbar urethra was successful in 18 of 19 patients (95%), which was comparable to the success rate of initial bulbar excision and primary anastomosis (251 of 268 or 94%) as well as secondary bulbar excision and primary anastomosis (17 of 18 or 94%, p = 0.975) with a similar mean stricture length. Mean followup for all patients was 41.5 months (range 6 to 90) and mean followup in each group was greater than 30 months. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat excision and primary anastomosis urethroplasty has excellent results for short bulbar strictures, comparable to those achieved in the initial and secondary setting.