Implantación de un programa de mininefrolitotomía percutánea ambulatoria: presentación del protocolo y resultados iniciales / Initial results of the implementation of an ambulatory mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy program

Objetivo Presentar nuestro protocolo de nefrolitotomía percutánea ambulatoria y evaluar los resultados iniciales del programa. Material y métodos Se analiza la implantación clínica del protocolo con los 30 primeros casos de mininefrolitotomía percutánea ambulatoria realizados en nuestro centro entre abril de 2021 y septiembre de 2022. Se recogen datos demográficos, variables perioperatorias, complicaciones y necesidad de atención médica no planificada, stone-free rate, tipología litiásica y parámetros de satisfacción con el proceso de cirugía mayor ambulatoria. Resultados Con una edad media de 60,2±11,6 años se intervinieron un total de 30 pacientes que cumplían los criterios de inclusión. El tamaño medio de la litiasis fue de 15mm [rango: 5-20]. No se registró ninguna complicación intraoperatoria. Todos los pacientes excepto uno fueron dados de alta el mismo día de la intervención, según lo planificado. El mes posterior al alta, la tasa de complicaciones, reconsulta a urgencias o reingreso hospitalario ha sido del 0%. La stone-free rate a los 3 meses ha sido del 83%. La satisfacción global de todo el proceso perioperatorio, valorada a través del cuestionario EVAN-G, fue de 124,3 puntos sobre un máximo de 150, equivalente a un 78,6% de grado de satisfacción. Conclusión La mininefrolitotomía percutánea en régimen ambulatorio puede instaurarse como una opción de asistencia en centros con experiencia en endourología, una unidad establecida de cirugía mayor ambulatoria y mediante una selección estricta de los pacientes. Nuestros resultados iniciales muestran un perfil de seguridad adecuado y un grado de satisfacción global elevado de los pacientes intervenidos en esta modalidad (AU)

Objective To present our program for ambulatory mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and evaluate its initial results. Material and methods We analyzed the implementation of the protocol into the clinical practice with the first 30 outpatient mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy cases performed in our center between April 2021 and September 2022. Demographic characteristics, perioperative variables, complications and need for unplanned health care, stone-free rate, stone type and patient satisfaction with the major ambulatory surgery process were collected. Results A total of 30 patients with a mean age of 60.2±11.6 years who met the inclusion criteria underwent surgery. The mean stone size was 15mm [range: 5-20]. No intraoperative complications were recorded. All patients except one were discharged the same day of surgery as planned. In the month following discharge, the rate of complications, emergency department revisits or hospital readmissions rates were 0%. Stone-free-rate at 3 months was 83%. Overall satisfaction with the whole perioperative process was assessed with the EVAN-G questionnaire, obtaining 124.3 points out of a maximum of 150, which is equivalent to a 78.6% level of satisfaction. Conclusion Ambulatory mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy can be implemented as a treatment option in centers with experience in endourology, an established major ambulatory surgery unit, and strictly selected patients. Our initial results show an adequate safety profile and high overall satisfaction perceived by patients undergoing the ambulatory approach (AU)

Preliminary results of the implementation of robotic radical prostatectomy in a major ambulatory surgery regimen.

OBJECTIVE: To report our initial experience with robotic radical prostatectomy as an outpatient procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent RRP as MAS (Major Ambulatory Surgery) at our center between March 2021 and May 2022. We collected baseline patient characteristics, intraoperative outcomes and postoperative data (need for unplanned medical care and complications at one month after surgery). Oncologic characteristics at disease diagnosis (PSA, staging, ISUP, MRI) and postoperative pathologic outcomes were collected. RESULTS: We identified a total of 35 patients with an average age of 60,8 ± 6,88 years and a BMI of 27 ± 2,9 Kg/m2. All patients had a low anesthetic risk and 25.71% had undergone previous abdominal surgery. The surgical time was 151,66 ± 42,15 min and the average blood loss was 301,2 ± 184,38 mL. Two patients (5.7%) were admitted for one night and 7 patients (20%) consulted the emergency department in the following month, of which 3 (8.57%) were readmitted. We recorded one intraoperative complication, seven mild postoperative complications (Clavien I-II) and one severe complication (Clavien IIIb). The severe complication occurred on the eighth postoperative day and was not related to the procedure being ambulatory. CONCLUSION: The absence of serious complications in the immediate postoperative period supports RRP in MAS as a safe technique for selected patients.

Initial results of the implementation of an ambulatory mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy program.

OBJECTIVE: To present our program for ambulatory mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) and evaluate its initial results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed the implementation of the protocol into the clinical practice with the first 30 outpatient mini-PCNL cases performed in our center between April 2021 and September 2022. Demographic characteristics, perioperative variables, complications and need for unplanned health care, stone-free rate (SFR), stone type and patient satisfaction with the major ambulatory surgery (MAS) process were collected. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients with a mean age of 60.2 ±â€¯11.6 years who met the inclusion criteria underwent surgery. The mean stone size was 15 mm [range: 5-20]. No intraoperative complications were recorded. All patients except one were discharged the same day of surgery as planned. In the month following discharge, the rate of complications, emergency department (ED) revisits or hospital readmissions rates were 0%. Stone-free-rate (SFR) at 3 months was 83%. Overall satisfaction with the whole perioperative process was assessed with the EVAN-G questionnaire, obtaining 124.3 points out of a maximum of 150, which is equivalent to a 78.6% level of satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Ambulatory mini-PCNL can be implemented as a treatment option in centers with experience in endourology, an established MAS Unit, and strictly selected patients. Our initial results show an adequate safety profile and high overall satisfaction perceived by patients undergoing the ambulatory approach.

Resultados preliminares de la implementación de la prostatectomía radical robótica en régimen de cirugía mayor ambulatoria / Preliminary results of the implementation of robotic radical prostatectomy in a major ambulatory surgery regimen

Objetivo Reportar nuestra experiencia inicial de prostatectomía radical robótica (PRR) en régimen ambulatorio. Material y métodos Análisis retrospectivo de los pacientes intervenidos de PRR en cirugía mayor ambulatoria (CMA) en nuestro centro entre marzo de 2021 y mayo de 2022. Recopilamos las características basales de los pacientes, los resultados intraoperatorios y los datos del postoperatorio (necesidad de asistencia médica no planificada y complicaciones al mes de la cirugía). Se recogieron las características oncológicas al diagnóstico de la enfermedad (PSA, estadificación, ISUP, RMN) y el resultado anatomopatológico tras la intervención. Resultados Identificamos un total de 35 pacientes, con una edad promedio de 60,8 ±6,88 años y un IMC de 27 ±2,9kg/m2. Todos presentaban un riesgo anestésico bajo y un 25,71% tenían alguna cirugía abdominal previa. El tiempo quirúrgico fue de 151,66 ±42,15 minutos y el sangrado promedio fue de 301,2 ±184,38mililitros. Dos pacientes (5,7%) ingresaron la primera noche de la cirugía y 7 pacientes (20%) consultaron en urgencias en el mes siguiente, de los cuales 3 (8,57%) reingresaron. Registramos una complicación intraoperatoria, 7 complicaciones postoperatorias leves (ClavienI-II) y una complicación grave (ClavienIIIb). La complicación grave transcurrió al octavo día postoperatorio y no tuvo relación con la ambulatorización del procedimiento. Conclusión La ausencia de complicaciones graves en el postoperatorio inmediato avala la PRR en régimen de CMA como una técnica segura dirigida a pacientes seleccionados (AU)

Objective To report our initial experience with robotic radical prostatectomy (RRP) as an outpatient procedure. Material and methods Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent RRP as major ambulatory surgery (MAS) at our center between March 2021 and May 2022. We collected baseline patient characteristics, intraoperative outcomes and postoperative data (need for unplanned medical care and complications at one month after surgery). Oncologic characteristics at disease diagnosis (PSA, staging, ISUP, MRI) and postoperative pathologic outcomes were collected. Results We identified a total of 35 patients with an average age of 60,8 ±6,88years and a BMI of 27 ±2,9kg/m2. All patients had a low anesthetic risk and 25.71% had undergone previous abdominal surgery. The surgical time was 151,66 ±42,15minutes and the average blood loss was 301,2 ±184,38milliliters. Two patients (5.7%) were admitted for one night and 7 patients (20%) consulted the emergency department in the following month, of which 3 (8.57%) were readmitted. We recorded one intraoperative complication, 7 mild postoperative complications (ClavienI-II) and one severe complication (ClavienIIIb). The severe complication occurred on the eighth postoperative day and was not related to the procedure being ambulatory. Conclusion The absence of serious complications in the immediate postoperative period supports RRP in MAS as a safe technique for selected patients (AU)

Nuestra experiencia en el manejo del cáncer de próstata en pacientes trasplantados renales / Our experience in the management of prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients

Introducción y objetivos: El manejo del cáncer de próstata (CP) en receptores de trasplante renal (RTR) es un reto y muchos aspectos siguen siendo controvertidos. Actualmente no hay consensos sobre el manejo de esta enfermedad. El objetivo del estudio fue analizar nuestra experiencia en el diagnóstico y tratamiento del CP en RTR. Método: Estudio monocéntrico retrospectivo de una base de datos prospectiva y consecutiva del 2003-2017. Inclusión de RTR diagnosticados de CP. Estadificación y tratamiento según guías contemporáneas. Los principales parámetros evaluados incluyeron estadificación clínica, tipo de tratamiento, resultados oncológicos y seguimiento. Resultados: De 1.330 trasplantes renales (787 varones), se diagnosticó CP en 33 RTR (4,2%), con una edad media de 66 años ± 6,3 (51-78). La media de PSA fue de 8,8 ng/ml y PSA ratio de 0,19. El tiempo medio entre el trasplante renal y el diagnóstico de CP fue de 130 meses ± 90 (2-236). Tratamiento: prostatectomía radical (PR) (n = 22; 66,7%), radioterapia (RT) más terapia de privación androgénica (TDA) (n = 7; 21,2%), vigilancia activa (n = 3; 9,1%) y TDA (n = 1; 3%). No se reportaron pérdidas del injerto ni deterioro de la función renal atribuibles al tratamiento del CP. Tras PR, 2 pacientes (9,1%) presentaron recurrencia bioquímica, tratados con RT. La remisión fue del 100% y el seguimiento medio, de 61 meses ± 37 (6-132). Conclusiones: El CP en trasplantados renales puede ser manejado con las mismas opciones terapéuticas que en la población general. La vigilancia activa debería también considerarse en los RTR a pesar de estar bajo tratamiento inmunosupresor

Introduction and objectives: The management of Prostate cancer (PCa) in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is challenging and remain controversial. Currently there is no consensus about this condition. The aim of the study was to analyse our experience in the diagnosis and management of PCa in RTR. Method: Retrospective monocentric study of a prospective and consecutive database from 2003-2017. Inclusion of RTR diagnosed of PCa. Staging and treatment in agreement with the contemporary guidelines. The main outcome measures included clinical staging, type of treatment, oncological outcomes and follow-up. Results: 1,330 renal transplants were performed (787 males), diagnosed of PCa in 33 RTR (4.2%), mean age 66 years ± 6.3 (51-78). Median PSA was 8.8 ng/ml and PSA ratio 0.19. Mean time between renal transplantation and PCa diagnosis 130 months ± 90 (2-236). Treatments: Radical prostatectomy (RP) (n = 22; 66.7%), Radiation therapy (RT) with Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (n = 7; 21.2%), Active surveillance (n = 3; 9.1%), ADT (n = 1; 3%). No graft loss neither impaired renal function due to PCa treatment was reported. After RP two patients (9.1%) presented biochemical recurrence treated with RT. Remission of the 100%. Mean follow-up was 61months ± 37 (6-132). Conclusions: PCa in renal transplant patients can be managed with the same therapeutic options as in the general population. Active surveillance should also be provided in RTR despite being under immunosuppressive therapy

Our experience in the management of prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients. / Nuestra experiencia en el manejo del cáncer de próstata en pacientes trasplantados renales.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The management of Prostate cancer (PCa) in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is challenging and remain controversial. Currently there is no consensus about this condition. The aim of the study was to analyse our experience in the diagnosis and management of PCa in RTR. METHOD: Retrospective monocentric study of a prospective and consecutive database from 2003-2017. Inclusion of RTR diagnosed of PCa. Staging and treatment in agreement with the contemporary guidelines. The main outcome measures included clinical staging, type of treatment, oncological outcomes and follow-up. RESULTS: 1,330 renal transplants were performed (787 males), diagnosed of PCa in 33 RTR (4.2%), mean age 66years±6.3 (51-78). Median PSA was 8.8ng/ml and PSA ratio 0.19. Mean time between renal transplantation and PCa diagnosis 130months±90 (2-236). TREATMENTS: Radical prostatectomy (RP) (n=22; 66.7%), Radiation therapy (RT) with Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (n=7; 21.2%), Active surveillance (n=3; 9.1%), ADT (n=1; 3%). No graft loss neither impaired renal function due to PCa treatment was reported. After RP two patients (9.1%) presented biochemical recurrence treated with RT. Remission of the 100%. Mean follow-up was 61months±37 (6-132). CONCLUSIONS: PCa in renal transplant patients can be managed with the same therapeutic options as in the general population. Active surveillance should also be provided in RTR despite being under immunosuppressive therapy.

Association between single-nucleotide polymorphisms in DNA double-strand break repair genes and prostate cancer aggressiveness in the Spanish population.

BACKGROUND: Novel predictors of prognosis and treatment response for prostate cancer (PCa) are required to better individualize treatment. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in four genes directly (XRCC5 (X-ray repair complementing defective repair in Chinese hamster cells 5) and XRCC6 (X-ray repair complementing defective repair in Chinese hamster cells 6)) or indirectly (PARP1 and major vault protein (MVP)) involved in non-homologous end joining were examined in 494 Spanish PCa patients. METHODS: A total of 22 SNPs were genotyped in a Biotrove OpenArray NT Cycler. Clinical tumor stage, diagnostic PSA serum levels and Gleason score at diagnosis were obtained for all participants. Genotypic and allelic frequencies were determined using the web-based environment SNPator. RESULTS: (XRCC6) rs2267437 appeared as a risk factor for developing more aggressive PCa tumors. Those patients carrying the GG genotype were at higher risk of developing bigger tumors (odds ratio (OR)=2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-3.29, P=0.004), present higher diagnostic PSA levels (OR=2.12, 95% CI 1.19-3.78, P=0.011), higher Gleason score (OR=1.65, 95% CI 1.01-2.68, P=0.044) and D'Amico higher risk tumors (OR=2.38, 95% CI 1.24-4.58, P=0.009) than those patients carrying the CC/CG genotypes. Those patients carrying the (MVP) rs3815824 TT genotype were at higher risk of presenting higher diagnostic PSA levels (OR=4.74, 95% CI 1.40-16.07, P=0.013) than those patients carrying the CC genotype. When both SNPs were analyzed in combination, those patients carrying the risk genotypes were at higher risk of developing D'Amico higher risk tumors (OR=3.33, 95% CI 1.56-7.17, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We believe that for the first time, genetic variants at XRCC6 and MVP genes are associated with risk of more aggressive disease, and would be taken into account when assessing the malignancy of PCa.

[Cystic multilocular nephroma. Report of a case]. / Nefroma multilocular quístico. Presentación de un caso.

We present a new case of multilocular cystic nephroma, and a review of literature. If C.T. diagnoses a cystic disease we apply the Bosniak classification. Multilocular cystic nephroma appears as a cystic disease, separately fibrous thin walls, with or without calcifications. We have to make a distinctive diagnosis between RCC and multilocular. Definitive diagnosis is always histological.

Nefroma multilocular quístico. Presentación de un caso / Multilocular cystic nephroma. A new case presentation

Presentamos un nuevo caso de nefroma multilocular quístico y se realiza revisión de la literatura. Ante una lesión quística compleja diagnosticada por T.C. aplicamos la clasificación de Bosniak. El nefroma multilocular se presenta en forma de lesión quística múltiple separada por tabiques fibrosos, con o sin calcificaciones, por lo que plantea el diagnóstico diferencial entre CCR y nefroma multiquístico. El diagnóstico definitivo es histológico (AU)

No disponible

[The diagnostic situation with prostatic cancer in primary care]. / Situación diagnóstica del cáncer de próstata en atención primaria.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the quality of diagnosis in primary care (PC) of prostate cancer (CP) and to analyse the factors linked to late diagnosis. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Five PC centres and a hospital (covering about 130,000 inhabitants). PATIENTS: All CP diagnosed in PC between April 1989 and October 1996. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: PC clinical history, hospital records and request for specialist consultation in 41 cases were reviewed. In cases coming from PC (71%), the most frequent clinical picture was mixed prostate syndrome (44.8%). PSA (20.7%) and urine sediment (17.2%) were the most commonly requested investigations. Rectal touch (RT) occurred in one case (3.4%) and four cases were diagnosed as CP. In the urology service, RT occurred in 68% of cases, with PSA determined in 59% of those who had not had it. After the first visit, 44% were diagnosed as CP. Two time intervals in common between PC and hospital were studied: referral-specialist visit and specialist visit-diagnosis. In PC there were mean delays of 50 days (SD, 53; percentile [P] 25 = 14; P50 = 35; P75 = 75) and 420 days (SD, 595; P25 = 72; P50 = 194; P75 = 490), respectively. In the hospital the times were 6 days for the first (SD, 6; P25 = 2; P50 = 5; P75 = 8.5), and 168 for the second (SD, 176; P25 = 34; P50 = 130; P75 = 271). The differences were statistically significant: p = 0.0006 and p = 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Doing RT and PSA determination in primary care would favour diagnosis in the cases of CP. The creation of training programmes and rapid referral routes to hospital could reduce the delays looked at.

Situación diagnóstica del cáncer de próstata en atención primaria / Diagnostic situation of prostate cancer in primary care

Objetivo. Valorar la calidad diagnóstica en atención primaria (AP) del cáncer de próstata (CP) y analizar factores asociados al posible retraso diagnóstico. Diseño. Estudio transversal retrospectivo. Emplazamiento. Cinco centros de AP y centro hospitalario (CH) (población aproximada, 130.000 habitantes). Pacientes. Todos los CP diagnosticados en el CH entre abril de 1989 y octubre de 1996. Mediciones y resultados principales. Se revisaron: historia clínica de AP, hospitalaria y petición de consulta especializada de los 41 casos. En los casos procedentes de AP (71 por ciento) la clínica más frecuente fue el síndrome prostático mixto (44,8 por ciento). El PSA (20,7 por ciento) y sedimento de orina (17,2 por ciento) fueron las exploraciones más solicitadas. Se realizó tacto rectal (TR) en un caso (3,4 por ciento) y 4 casos fueron orientados como CP. En el servicio de urología, el TR se realizó en un 68 por ciento de los casos, determinándose el PSA en el 59 por ciento de los que no lo tenían. Tras la primera visita, un 44 por ciento fue orientado como CP. Se estudiaron 2 intervalos de tiempos comunes: derivación-visita especializada y visita especializada-diagnóstico. En AP se obtuvo una media de 50 días (DE, 53; percentil [P] 25 = 14; P50 = 35; P75 = 75) y 420 (DE, 595; P25 = 72; P50 = 194; P75 = 490), respectivamente. Los resultados en el CH fueron de 6 días (DE, 6; P25 = 2; P50 = 5; P75 = 8,5) para el primero y 168 (DE, 176; P25 = 34; P50 = 130; P75 = 271) en el segundo. Las diferencias resultaron estadísticamente significativas: p = 0,0006 y p = 0,05. Conclusiones. La realización del TR y determinación del PSA desde AP favorecería la orientación diagnóstica en los casos de CP. La creación de programas formativos y vías de derivación rápida al CH permitiría reducir los intervalos estudiados Objetivo. Valorar la calidad diagnóstica en atención primaria (AP) del cáncer de próstata (CP) y analizar factores asociados al posible retraso diagnóstico. Diseño. Estudio transversal retrospectivo. Emplazamiento. Cinco centros de AP y centro hospitalario (CH) (población aproximada, 130.000 habitantes). Pacientes. Todos los CP diagnosticados en el CH entre abril de 1989 y octubre de 1996. Mediciones y resultados principales. Se revisaron: historia clínica de AP, hospitalaria y petición de consulta especializada de los 41 casos. En los casos procedentes de AP (71 por ciento) la clínica más frecuente fue el síndrome prostático mixto (44,8 por ciento). El PSA (20,7 por ciento) y sedimento de orina (17,2 por ciento) fueron las exploraciones más solicitadas. Se realizó tacto rectal (TR) en un caso (3,4 por ciento) y 4 casos fueron orientados como CP. En el servicio de urología, el TR se realizó en un 68 por ciento de los casos, determinándose el PSA en el 59 por ciento de los que no lo tenían. Tras la primera visita, un 44 por ciento fue orientado como CP. Se estudiaron 2 intervalos de tiempos comunes: derivación-visita especializada y visita especializada-diagnóstico. En AP se obtuvo una media de 50 días (DE, 53; percentil [P] 25 = 14; P50 = 35; P75 = 75) y 420 (DE, 595; P25 = 72; P50 = 194; P75 = 490), respectivamente. Los resultados en el CH fueron de 6 días (DE, 6; P25 = 2; P50 = 5; P75 = 8,5) para el primero y 168 (DE, 176; P25 = 34; P50 = 130; P75 = 271) en el segundo. Las diferencias resultaron estadísticamente significativas: p = 0,0006 y p = 0,05. Conclusiones. La realización del TR y determinación del PSA desde AP favorecería la orientación diagnóstica en los casos de CP. La creación de programas formativos y vías de derivación rápida al CH permitiría reducir los intervalos estudiados (AU)