Vascular closure devices in living-donor nephrectomy: a much-needed systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on safety.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of vascular closure devices in living-donor nephrectomy (LDN), as staplers and non-transfixion techniques (polymer locking and metal clips) are the methods employed to secure the renal vessels during laparoscopic and robotic LDN, but the use of clips has come into question since the United States Food and Drug Administration and manufacturers issued a contraindication. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the safety of vascular closure devices (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO] registration: CRD42022364349). The PubMed, Scopus, the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and the Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) databases were searched in September 2022. For comparative and non-comparative studies, incidence estimates and odds ratios (ORs), respectively, for the main variables regarding safety of vascular closure devices were pooled by using random effects meta-analyses. Quality assessment of the included comparative studies was conducted using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. RESULTS: Of the 863 articles obtained, data were retrieved from 44 studies, which included 42 902 patients. In non-comparative studies, the pooled estimate rates for device failure, severe haemorrhage rate, conversion to open surgery, and mortality were similar for both clips and staplers. Regarding the meta-analyses for comparative studies (three studies), there were no significant differences between the two groups for the severe haemorrhage rate (OR 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-1.75; P = 0.33), conversion to open surgery (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08-1.54; P = 0.16), or death rate (OR 3.64, 95% CI 0.47-28.45; P = 0.22). Based on weak evidence, device failure was lower in the polymer clip group (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.75; P = 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: This study has confirmed that there is no evidence for the superiority of any vascular closure device in terms of safety in LDN. Standardised recommendations for vascular control in this context should be carefully designed and prospectively evaluated.

Systematic review on oncologic outcomes on adjuvant endovesical treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer in patients with solid organ transplant.

PURPOSE: Urothelial carcinoma has a higher incidence in renal transplanted patients according to several registries (relative risk × 3), and the global prognosis is inferior to the general population. The potential impact of immunosuppressive therapy on the feasibility, efficacy, and complications of endovesical treatment, especially Bacillus Calmette-Guerin, has a low level of evidence. We performed a systematic review that aimed to assess the morbidity and oncological outcomes of adjuvant endovesical treatment in solid organ transplanted patients. METHODS: Medline was searched up to December 2021 for all relevant publications reporting oncologic outcomes of endovesical treatment in solid organ transplanted patients with NMIBC. Data were synthesized in light of methodological and clinical heterogeneity. RESULTS: Twenty-three retrospective studies enrolling 238 patients were included: 206 (96%) kidney transplants, 5 (2%) liver transplants, and 2 (1%) heart transplants. Concerning staging: 25% were pTa, 62% were pT1, and 22% were CIS. 140/238 (59%) patients did not receive adjuvant treatment, 50/238 (21%) received mitomycin C, 4/238 (2%) received epirubicin, and 46/238 (19%) received BCG. Disease-free survival reached 35% with TURBT only vs. 47% with endovesical treatment (Chi-square test p = 0.08 OR 1.2 [0.98-1.53]). The complication rate of endovesical treatment was 12% and was all minor (Clavien-Dindo I). CONCLUSION: In solid organ transplanted patients under immunosuppressive treatment, both endovesical chemotherapy and BCG are safe, but the level of evidence concerning efficacy in comparison with the general population is low. According to these results, adjuvant treatment should be proposed for NMIC in transplanted patients as in the general population.

What Should Be Known by a Urologist About the Medical Management of COVID-19's Patients?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The alarming number of confirmed COVID-19 cases put a strain on the healthcare systems, which had to reallocate human and technical resources to respond to the emergency. Many urologists became integrated into multidisciplinary teams, dealing with this respiratory illness and its unknown management. It aims to summarize the epidemiological, clinical, diagnostical, and therapeutical characteristics of COVID-19, from a practical perspective, to ease COVID-19 management to non-physician staff. RECENT FINDINGS: We performed a narrative review of the literature regarding COVID-19, updated to May 8th, 2020, at PubMed and COVID resource platforms of the main scientific editorials. COVID-19, characterized by fever, myalgias, dyspnea, and dry cough, varies widely from asymptomatic infection to death. Arrhythmias and thrombotic events are prevalent. Lymphopenia and inflammatory reactant elevation on laboratory, as well as bilateral and peripheral ground-glass opacities or consolidations on X-Ray, are usually found in its assessment. Little is known about SARS-CoV-2 immunology. To date, no therapy has demonstrated efficacy in COVID-19. Of-level or compassionate-use therapies are prescribed in the context of clinical trials. We should become familiar with specific adverse events and pharmacological interactions. The COVID-19 pandemic has paralyzed the urological activity, and its long-term consequences are unpredictable. Despite not being used to deal with respiratory diseases, the urologists become easily qualified to manage COVID-19 by following protocols and being integrated into multidisciplinary teams, helping to overcome the pandemic.

Lectura de oraciones en español: similitudes y diferencias entre niños con dislexia y niños con sordera / Reading sentences in spanish: some similarities and differences between children with dyslexia and those with deafness

Este estudio compara las estrategias para leer oraciones utilizadas por un grupo de escolares con dislexia (n = 107) y un grupo con sordera e implante coclear (n = 61) de lengua castellana. Los resultados indican que solo los participantes con sordera adoptan la estrategia de palabras clave (EPC), que consiste en identificar algunas de las palabras de la oración con contenido semántico propio, e ignorar las palabras funcionales. Se observa además que el uso de la EPC está asociado con un déficit sintáctico. Por otra parte, cuando los dos grupos se emparejan en el nivel lector con niños con desarrollo típico en lectura (Grupo Control, n = 785), las diferencias entre los Grupos Disléxico y Control desaparecieron. Sin embargo, los niños con sordera mantenían su tendencia a usar la EPC y seguían presentando dificultades para procesar las palabras funcionales. Estos resultados excluyen la hipótesis de que la EPC sea un procedimiento utilizado de forma general para compensar los déficits de lectura, pareciendo depender, más específicamente, de dificultades en la capacidad sintáctica

The present study compares the strategies to read sentences used by Spanish-speaking children with dyslexia (n = 107) and cochlear-implanted children with deafness (n = 61). The results show that children with deafness, but not with dyslexia, adopt the key-word-strategy (KWS), which consists of identifying some content words of the sentence while ignoring the function words. Furthermore, it appeared that the KWS was associated with poor syntactic ability. Moreover, when Dyslexic and Deaf Groups were carefully matched at reading level with normally developing children (Control Group, n = 785) all of the differences between dyslexics and normally developing children disappeared. Children with hearing loss however were still poor at dealing with function words and consequently maintained their tendency to use the KWS. These results exclude the hypothesis that the KWS is a broadly used procedure to compensate for reading deficits but seems, rather, to depend on poor syntactic ability