Analgesia Using Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation in Office Bladder Chemodenervation, a Randomized Controlled Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Office bladder chemodenervation, performed via cystoscopy with intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX) injections, is a common treatment for overactive bladder/urge urinary incontinence. Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) has shown to provide analgesia during office hysteroscopy. Adjuvant analgesia using TENS during bladder chemodenervation has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: The primary outcome is a clinically significant (10-mm) difference in pain visual analog scale (VAS) measurements during injections for chemodenervation using active TENS compared with placebo TENS. We hypothesize that active TENS use will significantly change pain VAS scores. Secondary outcomes include 5-point pain Likert scale, satisfaction 10-point scale, and adverse events. STUDY DESIGN: This was a double-blind randomized control trial of men and women with urinary urge incontinence undergoing office chemodenervation performed in an academic and private setting. Participants were randomized into 2 groups: chemodenervation with active TENS or placebo TENS. Power calculation determined 100 patients would be required detect a difference of 10 mm on pain VAS. RESULTS: One hundred one (85 female and 16 male) participants were recruited. No differences were noted in the demographics. Participants in the active TENS group reported a difference of greater than 10 mm in pain VAS scores (48 ± 23 vs 31 ± 23, P = 0.01). Satisfaction index scores were high but no difference was noted between groups (8.6 vs 8.7, P = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Most participants were eligible to use TENS units. Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation is a safe and noninvasive adjuvant analgesia option for patients undergoing this procedure. Lower pain levels and high satisfaction rates suggest that this is an additional analgesic option during outpatient chemodenervation.

Use of intraurethral alprostadil in patients not responding to sildenafil citrate.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether intraurethral alprostadil would be an effective alternative for men with erectile dysfunction who did not respond adequately to sildenafil citrate but desired minimally invasive treatment. METHODS: A total of 44 male patients aged 41 to 74 years with erectile dysfunction refractory to treatment with sildenafil citrate were enrolled in this study. Of the 44 patients, 10 had undergone prior radical retropubic prostatectomy. The patients were evaluated for subjective improvement in an office setting and completed the Sexual Health Inventory for Men questionnaire as an objective assessment of improved erectile ability. Success was defined as subjective improvement in erectile function, as well as an improved Sexual Health Inventory for Men score. RESULTS: Of the 44 men, 13 (29.5%) responded successfully to intraurethral alprostadil, with a follow-up ranging from 2 to 15 months. The remaining 31 men had no response (n = 28, 90%), refused escalating doses (n = 2, 7%), or were lost to follow-up (n = 1, 3%). In the subgroup of 10 men with prior radical retropubic prostatectomy, 5 (50%) reported success with intraurethral alprostadil (500 microg in 2 patients and 1000 microg in 3 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Although sildenafil citrate remains the most common initial therapy in men with erectile dysfunction, intraurethral alprostadil may be a reasonable treatment option for sildenafil nonresponders. This may be especially true in men having undergone prior radical retropubic prostatectomy.

Minimal incision living donor nephrectomy compared to the hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: There has been a surge of minimally invasive procedures for living donor nephrectomy. We compared our minimal incision living donor (MILD) nephrectomy to hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) living donor nephrectomy METHODS: We conducted a Medline search and compared our first 45 MILD nephrectomies to the data from the University of Michigan (UM), Tulane University (TU), and the University of Chicago (UC). RESULTS: The MILD incision was smaller than the cumulative incisions in the UM and UC groups (8.6, 11 and 10.4 cm, respectively). The operating times were similar in the UM and UC groups (209, 246, and 215 min, respectively). The UM and TU lengths of hospital stay (1.8 and 2.2 days) were shorter than those of the MILD and UC groups (2.5 and 2.8 days). CONCLUSIONS: MILD nephrectomy has results similar to those of HAL living donor nephrectomy. It allows the surgeon with a traditionally trained background to perform a safe, minimally invasive operation without laparoscopic technology.

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: incorporating advantages of hand assisted and standard laparoscopy.

PURPOSE: We present an approach to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and intact specimen extraction, which incorporates hand assisted and standard laparoscopic techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A refined approach to laparoscopic radical nephrectomy is described and our experience is reviewed. A low, muscle splitting Gibson incision is made just lateral to the rectus muscle and the hand port is inserted. A trocar is placed through the hand port and pneumoperitoneum is established. With the laparoscope in the hand port trocar 2 additional trocars are placed under direct vision. The laparoscope is then repositioned through the middle trocar and standard laparoscopic instruments are used through the other 2 trocars including the one in the hand port. If at any time during the procedure the surgeon believes the hand would be useful or needed, the trocar is removed from the hand port and the hand is inserted. RESULTS: This approach has been applied to 7 patients. Mean estimated blood loss was 200 cc (range 50 to 300) and mean operative time was 276.7 minutes (range 247 to 360). Mean specimen weight was 767 gm. (range 538 to 1,170). Pathologically 6 specimens were renal cell carcinoma (grades 2 to 4) and 1 was oncocytoma. Mean length of hospital stay was 3.71 days (range 2 to 7). There were no major complications. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that this approach enables the surgeon to incorporate the advantages of the hand assisted and standard laparoscopic approaches.

Minimal incision living donor nephrectomy: improvement in patient outcome.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the minimal incision living donor (MILD) nephrectomy and compare it with the standard open donor (SOD) nephrectomy with respect to incision size, operative time, complication rate, length of hospital stay, and recipient creatinine. METHODS: Forty-five consecutive patients who underwent MILD nephrectomy were compared with 13 patients who had previously undergone SOD nephrectomy. The MILD nephrectomy was performed through a minimally invasive incision using a modified, anterolateral, retroperitoneal approach without a rib resection. The incision length, operative time, complication rates, length of hospital stay, and recipient creatinine were analyzed. RESULTS: The average incision length in the MILD group was 8.6 cm compared with 21.8 cm in the SOD group (P >0.005.) The operative times (209 minutes in the MILD group versus 191 minutes in the SOD group) were not significantly different. Four postoperative complications were encountered in the SOD group and seven in the MILD group. The average hospital stay for the MILD patients was 2.5 days compared with 4.6 days in the SOD group, and as the procedure was refined, the length of stay was reduced to 1 day in 3 patients. The recipient creatinine at 1 and 6 months was 1.39 and 1.4 mg/dL in the MILD group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MILD nephrectomy allows the patient to undergo a less morbid procedure with a more aesthetic incision. Patients have fewer complications, minimal anesthesia exposure, and short hospital stays.