[Design and validation of a satisfaction questionnaire in patients with urolithiasis treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).] / Diseño y validación de un cuestionario de salud en pacientes con urolitiasis tratados mediante litotricia extracorpórea por ondas de choque (LEOC).

OBJECTIVES: Studying the psychosocial sphere of patients who undergo any treatment allows to have more information about its repercussion and can help the choice of an appropriate and personalized treatment. Due to the absence of specific instruments at present, the objective is to design and validate a health questionnaire regarding the treatment received with ESWL. METHODS: It was carried out in 6 phases using a sampleof 50 patients treated with ESWL in 2015 in ourcenter, whom we interviewed by telephone. In phase1 the items were proposed based on bibliographic review,in phase 2 those that scored below 7 were eliminatedaccording to the evaluation from 0 to 10 on theitems made by specialists. In phase 3, values of 1 to 5were assigned to each item and those with correctedcorrelation more than 0.2 and not significant (p>0.05)discriminant power with U-Mann Whitney were eliminated.In phase 4 the reliability of the questionnaire waschecked with two indexes (Cronbach's alpha and twoGuttman's halves). In phase 5, the factor analysis withVarimax rotation was performed to calculate the constructvalidity and in stage 6, the scores were analyzedto establish reference values. RESULTS: 50 patients (32 men, 18 women). Medianage 59 years (27-79). In phase 1, 35 items were proposed,9 of which were eliminated in phase 2. The initialquestionnaire with 26 items was distributed, with 18being eliminated in phase 3. The final questionnaire wasformed with 8 items. In phase 4 the results of Cronbach'salpha and Guttman's two halves index were 0.44 and0.323 respectively. In phase 5 after factor analysis, wefound 4 factors with 2 items each (background, impactof the acute picture, post-treatment, quality of life) able toexplain 71.19% of the variance. The median scores ofthe scale, extreme values and quartiles studied in phase6 were respectively: P50: 17 (minimum-maximum 9-25),P25: 14 and P75: 20. CONCLUSIONS: The study carried out has provided anew instrument for assessing satisfaction after treatmentwith ESWL with adequate reliability and validity values.Future studies will be necessary to contrast its true clinicalusefulness.

OBJETIVO: Estudiar la esfera psicosocial de los pacientes que se someten a algún tratamiento permite tener más información sobre la repercusión del mismo y puede ayudar a la elección de un tratamiento adecuado y personalizado. Debido a la ausencia deinstrumentos específicos actualmente, el objetivo es diseñary validar un cuestionario de salud en pacientes tratados con LEOC.MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se realizó en 6 fases utilizando una muestra de 50 pacientes tratados con LEOC en 2015 en nuestro centro, a los que entrevistamos por vía telefónica. En la fase 1 se propusieron ítems a partir de revisión bibliográfica. En la fase 2 se eliminaron losque puntuaban por debajo de 7 según la valoración de 0-10 sobre los ítems efectuada por especialistas en la materia. En la fase 3 se asignaron valores de 1 a 5 a cada ítem y se eliminaron aquellos cuya correlación corregida fuera mayor de 0,2 y cuya potencia discriminante con U-Mann Whitney no fuera significativa (p>0,05). En la fase 4 se comprobó la fiabilidad del cuestionario con dos índices (alfa de Cronbach y dos mitades de Guttman). En la fase 5 se realizó el análisis factorial con rotación Varimax para el cálculo de la validez de constructo. Finalmente, en la fase 6 se tipificaron de las puntuaciones para establecer valores de referencia. RESULTADOS: 50 pacientes (32 hombres, 18 mujeres). Mediana edad 59 años (27-79). Fase 1: 35 ítems propuestos. Fase 2: 9 ítems eliminados. Distribución de cuestionario con 26 ítems. Fase 3: 18 ítems eliminados.Cuestionario final constituido por 8 ítems. Fase 4: valores de fiabilidad del cuestionario (alfa de Cronbach 0,44 e índice por técnica de dos mitades de Guttman 0,323). Fase 5: análisis factorial hallando 4 factores con 2 ítems cada uno (antecedentes, repercusión delcuadro agudo, post-tratamiento, calidad de vida) capaces de explicar el 71,19% de la varianza. Fase 6: mediana puntuación  50:17(mínimo-máximo 9-25), P25:14 y P75:20. CONCLUSIONES: El trabajo realizado ha proporcionado un nuevo instrumento de evaluación de salud tras tratamiento con LEOC con valores de fiabilidad y validez adecuados. Serán necesarios futuros estudios para contrastar su verdadera utilidad clínica.

Diseño y validación de un cuestionario de salud en pacientes con urolitiasis tratados mediante litotricia extracorpórea por ondas de choque (LEOC) / No disponible

Objetivo: Estudiar la esfera psicosocial de los pacientes que se someten a algún tratamiento permite tener más información sobre la repercusión del mismo y puede ayudar a la elección de un tratamiento adecuado y personalizado. Debido a la ausencia de instrumentos específicos actualmente, el objetivo es diseñar y validar un cuestionario de salud en pacientes tratados con LEOC. Material y métodos: Se realizó en 6 fases utilizando una muestra de 50 pacientes tratados con LEOC en 2015 en nuestro centro, a los que entrevistamos por vía telefónica. En la fase 1 se propusieron ítems a partir de revisión bibliográfica. En la fase 2 se eliminaron los que puntuaban por debajo de 7 según la valoración de 0-10 sobre los ítems efectuada por especialistas en la materia. En la fase 3 se asignaron valores de 1 a 5 a cada ítem y se eliminaron aquellos cuya correlación corregida fuera mayor de 0,2 y cuya potencia discriminante con U-Mann Whitney no fuera significativa (p>0,05). En la fase 4 se comprobó la fiabilidad del cuestionario con dos índices (alfa de Cronbach y dos mitades de Guttman). En la fase 5 se realizó el análisis factorial con rotación Varimax para el cálculo de la validez de constructo. Finalmente, en la fase 6 se tipificaron de las puntuaciones para establecer valores de referencia. Resultados: 50 pacientes (32 hombres, 18 mujeres). Mediana edad 59 años (27-79). Fase 1: 35 ítems propuestos. Fase 2: 9 ítems eliminados. Distribución de cuestionario con 26 ítems. Fase 3: 18 ítems eliminados. Cuestionario final constituido por 8 ítems. Fase 4: valores de fiabilidad del cuestionario (alfa de Cronbach 0,44 e índice por técnica de dos mitades de Guttman 0,323). Fase 5: análisis factorial hallando 4 factores con 2 ítems cada uno (antecedentes, repercusión del cuadro agudo, post-tratamiento, calidad de vida) capaces de explicar el 71,19% de la varianza. Fase 6: mediana puntuación 50:17(mínimo-máximo 9-25), P25:14 y P75:20. Conclusiones: El trabajo realizado ha proporcionado un nuevo instrumento de evaluación de salud tras tratamiento con LEOC con valores de fiabilidad y validez adecuados. Serán necesarios futuros estudios para contrastar su verdadera utilidad clínica

Objectives: Studying the psychosocial sphere of patients who undergo any treatment allows to have more information about its repercussion and can help the choice of an appropriate and personalized treatment. Due to the absence of specific instruments at present, the objective is to design and validate a health questionnaire regarding the treatment received with ESWL. Methods: It was carried out in 6 phases using a sample of 50 patients treated with ESWL in 2015 in our center, whom we interviewed by telephone. In phase 1 the items were proposed based on bibliographic review, in phase 2 those that scored below 7 were eliminated according to the evaluation from 0 to 10 on the items made by specialists. In phase 3, values of 1 to 5 were assigned to each item and those with corrected correlation more than 0.2 and not significant (p>0.05) discriminant power with U-Mann Whitney were eliminated. In phase 4 the reliability of the questionnaire was checked with two indexes (Cronbach’s alpha and two Guttman's halves). In phase 5, the factor analysis with Varimax rotation was performed to calculate the construct validity and in stage 6, the scores were analyzed to establish reference values. Results: 50 patients (32 men, 18 women). Median age 59 years (27-79). In phase 1, 35 items were proposed, 9 of which were eliminated in phase 2. The initial questionnaire with 26 items was distributed, with 18 being eliminated in phase 3. The final questionnaire was formed with 8 items. In phase 4 the results of Cronbach’s alpha and Guttman’s two halves index were 0.44 and 0.323 respectively. In phase 5 after factor analysis, we found 4 factors with 2 items each (background, impact of the acute picture, post-treatment, quality of life) able to explain 71.19% of the variance. The median scores of the scale, extreme values and quartiles studied in phase 6 were respectively: P50: 17 (minimum-maximum 9-25), P25: 14 and P75: 20. Conclusions: The study carried out has provided a new instrument for assessing satisfaction after treatment with ESWL with adequate reliability and validity values. Future studies will be necessary to contrast its true clinical usefulness

Prevalence analysis of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy and influential preoperative factors in a single institution.

AIMS: To assess prevalence of urinary incontinence (UI) after radical prostatectomy (RP) and to analyze which preoperative characteristics of the patients have influence on UI. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2012, 746 consecutive patients underwent RP for clinically localized prostate cancer. We defined UI according to International Continence Society (ICS) definition: "the complaint of any involuntary leakage of urine" after 12 months of recovery, international consultation on incontinence questionnaire (ICIQ-SF) and pads/day was collected too. Clinical features and magnetic resonance imaging measurements were assessed. A multivariable logistic regression model predicting incontinence were built-in after adjust by cofounding factors and bootstrapping. RESULTS: About 172 (23%) of the patients were classified as incontinent according to the ICS definition. The mean value of the ICIQ-SF was 10.87 (±4). 17.8% of patients use at least one pad/day, 11.9% use more than one pad/day. The preoperative factors independently influential in UI are: age [OR: 1.055; CI 95% (1.006-1.107), p = .028], urethral wall thickness [OR: 5.03; CI 95% (1.11-22.8), p = .036], history of transurethral resection of the prostate [OR: 6.13; CI 95% (1.86-20.18), p = .003] and membranous urethral length [OR: 0.173; CI 95% (0.046-0.64), p = .009]. The predictive accuracy of the model is 78.7% and the area under the curve (AUC) value 71.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy has different prevalence depending on the definition. Age, prior transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), membranous urethral length (MUL) and urethral wall thickness (UWT) were risk factors.

Can low urinary tract symptoms influence postprostatectomy urinary incontinence?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze what kind of urinary symptoms patients have before receiving treatment by radical prostatectomy (RP), and to evaluate their influence on urinary incontinence (UI). METHODS: Between 2002 and 2012, 758 consecutive patients underwent RP for clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). Surgery was carried out by open retropubic RP in 545 (73.1%) of patients and laparoscopic RP in 201 (27%) by 5 surgeons who were excluded from data collection and analysis. The following symptoms were collected from the last urological check-ups or pre-operative consultation and classified as: storage symptoms, voiding symptoms, post micturition symptoms, history of acute urinary retention, benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment, history of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). RESULTS: A total of 661 patients were included on analysis: 136 (20.6%) patients reported low urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), 162 (24.5%) were considered incontinent after RP, and 45 (33.1%) of them reported LUTS before surgery. Postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI) was significantly different in patients with LUTS (117 [22.3%] vs. 45 [33.1%], P=0.009). The presence of any LUTS influence significantly in the appearance of PPUI (OR=1.72 [95% CI: 1.14-2.6), P=0.01). TURP is independently influential in PPUI (OR=6.13 [95% CI: 1.86-20.18], P=0.003). A patient with LUTS before surgery has an increased risk of 70% or even 200% to suffer PPUI and a patient who received treatment by TURP is 6 times at higher risk of PPUI. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, patients with LUTS are likely to present PPUI. History of TURP is influential by itself over PPUI. A good preoperative consultation is important to assess continence status and to create realistic expectations to patients before RP.

MRI factors to predict urinary incontinence after retropubic/laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer can be treated by radical prostatectomy (RP) and provoke a troublesome side effect: urinary incontinence (UI). We propose a verification of the usefulness of MRI and an identification of which structures are involved in UI after RP. METHODS: Between September 2002 and December 2011, 550 patients underwent RP. We performed MRI to evaluate extraprostatic disease before surgery. To evaluate patient status, we measured the following structures: length (LP), width (WP), height (HP) and volume (PV) of the prostate, membranous urethral length (MUL), urethral wall thickness (UWT), levator ani muscle (LAM) and obturator internus muscle (OIM) thickness, ratio of levator ani muscle/prostate volume (LAM/PV), volume of the urethra (VU). UI was defined according to ICS definition as the complaint of any involuntary leakage of urine and evaluated 1 year after surgery. Analyses were performed by mean comparisons, univariate and multivariate logistic regression with a 1000-resample bootstrapping. RESULTS: Means of measurements were: LP 4.46 cm, WP 5.15 cm, HP 3.9 cm, PV 49.3 cc; LAM 0.51 cm, OIM 1.46 cm; MUL 1.43 cm, UWT 1.38 cm; and LAM/PV 0.013 cm/cc, VU 2.33 cc. One hundred and twenty-two (22.2 %) patients complained of urine leakage. Univariate obtained differences in PV, OIM, MUL, and UWT. After adjusting by confounders, multivariate analysis showed: MUL: [OR 0.134; CI 95 % (0.022-0.493); P 0.006]; PV: [OR 1.016; CI 95 % (1.004-1.029); P 0.005]; UWT: [OR 6.03; CI 95 % (1.068-44.1); P 0.033]. CONCLUSIONS: MRI is a useful tool to predict UI after RP. The MUL and PV are well-identified structures that are involved in UI. Our study shows that UWT also influences UI.

Survival analysis of patients with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy treated with androgen deprivation: Castration-resistance influential factors.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluate the prognosis of patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and to determine the influential factors to castration resistance (CR) and death. METHODS: From a series of 1310 patients with T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy between 1989 and 2012, 371 had BCR. Patients with lymph node involvement were excluded. We analyzed only the 159 treated with salvage ADT. At the end of the study, 77 (48%) had developed CR. RESULTS: The median follow-up to CR was 9.2 years. The CR-resistant free survival (RFS) was 76 ± 3%, 62 ± 3% and 43 ± 9% in 5, 10 and 15 years, respectively. The RFS median time was 14 years. In the multivariate study, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time (PSA-DT) was <6 months (p = 0.01) (hazard ratio [HR] 3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-6.8, p = 0.007); seminal vesicle involvement (HR 3.1; 95% CI 1.5-6.2, p = 0.01) and PSA velocity in ng/mL/year (HR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1-1.5, p = 0.002) with better cut-off points of 0.84 ng/mL/year (p = 0.04) (HR 4; 95% CI 1.7-9.4, p = 0.001) were influential variables. Specific survival (SS) at 5, 10 and 15 years since surgery was 96 ± 1, 85 ± 2 and 76 ± 4, respectively. The time of CR to death was 30 ± 6% at 5 years, with the median at 3.2 years. In the multivariate only Ki 67 (HR 1.04; 95% CI 1.005-1.08, p = 0.02) had an independent influence. CONCLUSIONS: In BCR patients treated with ADT, the median to CR was 14 years. PSA-DT <6 months, PSA velocity (ng/mL/year) and seminal vesicle involvement were influential variables. From the CR, the median time to death was 3.2 years. Ki-67 marker was an independent influence.

Case of emphysematous pyelonephritis in kidney allograft: Conservative treatment.

Emphysematous pyelonephritis is an acute necrotizing infection with gas in the kidney and perinephric space that carries a bad prognosis. Apart from its predisposing clinical entities, diabetes mellitus and immune-incompetence are quite common in patients with this infection. We report a case of a 53-year-old kidney transplant recipient diabetic male, suffering from recurrent fever, abdominal pain and nausea episodes. Immediate broad-spectrum antibiotics were administered and percutaneous drainage was performed after the diagnosis. The bacteria involved were Stahpylococcus epidermidis and Escherichia coli. After 4 weeks of antibiotic treatment and abscesses drainage, the case was resolved. Consecutives urine cultures and ultrasonographies confirm the complete resolution of the disease. We discuss the predisposing factors, clinical presentation and management.

Radical prostatectomy. Detailed surgical margins. Prognostic value of multifocal involvement in pT2 (+).

OBJECTIVES: We intend to analyze the prognostic value of positive surgical margins depending on their number and location in pT2 patients. METHODS: We analyze 448 (34.3%) patients with positive surgical margins from a series of 1,310 T1-T2 patients treated with radical prostatectomy between 1989-2012. Of them 164 are pT2 (+). 119 (72.6% ) have unifocal affectation (41 (34.5%) unifocal in right lobe; 35 (29.4%) unifocal in left lobe, 40 (33.6%) unifocal in apex, 3 (2.5% ) unifocal proximal) and 45 (27.4%) multifocal involvement. RESULTS: Unifocal and multifocal pT2(+)patients have not evidenced significant differences in any of the clinicopathologic variables compared. However the BPFS at 5 and 10 years is significantly worse in the multifocal group, (p<0.000) In the BPFS multivariate study of 164 pT2(+ )influential variables are: multifocal involvement (HR: 3.4; 95%IC 1.7-6.9 p<0.000) and PSA (HR: 1.03; 95%IC 1.02-1.05 p<0.000), being PSA >15 ng/ml )HR: 3.7; 95%IC 2.1-6.6 p<0.000 ( the best cut-off point. Risk groups: Using the independent influence variables, the best model (using Cox models ) includes two risk groups: Group 1 (0 variables): They are pT2(+) with unifocal affectation and PSA<15 ng/ml, (63%). Their BPFS are 81±4% and 77±4% (5 and 10 years). Grupo 2 (1-2 variables): They are pT2 (+) with multifocal involvement, PSA> 15 ng/ml or both of them, (37%). Their BPFS are 46±6% and 26±7% (5 and 10 years). The BPFS differs significantly between the two groups (p<0.000). The Group 1 BPFS is similar to the pT2 (-) patients, (p:0.242). The Group 2 BPFS is similar to the pT3(+) patients, (p:0.637). The model explained significantly better the BPFS than any of the individual variables analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: In pT2(+) patients the prognosis is significantly worse in multifocal involvement. In addition two groups of patients can be clearly distinguished from the BPFS point view according to their influential variables. The data suggest that since the prognostic point view the second group is understaged while the first is overstaged.

Prostatectomía radical. Margen quirúrgico pormenorizado. Valor pronóstico de la multifocalidad en pT2 con márgenes afectados / Radical prostatectomy. Detailed surgical margins. Prognostic value of multifocal involvement in pT2(+)

OBJETIVO: Pretendemos analizar en los pacientes pT2 con márgenes afectados el valor pronóstico real de los márgenes en función de su número y localización. MÉTODOS: Analizamos 448 (34,3%) pacientes con márgenes afectados de una serie de 1.310 pacientes T1-T2 tratados mediante prostatectomía radical entre 1.989-2.012. De ellos 164 son pT2(+), 119 (72,6%) tienen afectación unifocal 41 (34,5%) unifocal en lóbulo derecho; 35 (29,4%) unifocal en lóbulo izquierdo, 40 (33,6%) unifocal en ápex, 3 (2,5%) unifocal proximal) y 45 (27,4%) afectación multifocal. RESULTADOS: Los pT2(+) unifocales y multifocales no evidencian diferencias significativas en ninguna de las variables clínico-patológicas comparadas. Sin embargo la Supervivencia Libre de Progresión Bioquímica (SLPB) a 5 y 10 años es significativamente peor en el grupo multifocal, (p<0,000). En el estudio multivariado son influyentes en la SLPB de los 164 pT2(+): afectación multifocal (HR: 3,4; IC 95% 1,7-6,9 p<0,000) y PSA (HR: 1,03; IC 95% 1,02-1,05 p<0,000) siendo el mejor punto de corte, PSA >15 ng/ml (HR: 3,7; IC 95% 2,1-6,6 p<0,000). Grupos de Riesgo: Utilizando las variables de influencia independiente el mejor modelo utilizando los modelos de Cox incluye dos grupos de riesgo: Grupo 1 (0 variables presentes): Son pT2(+) con afectación unifocal y PSA<15 ng/ml, (63%). Su SLPB es 81±4% y 77±4% (5 y 10 años). Grupo 2 (1-2 variables presentes): Son pT2(+) con afectación multifocal, PSA>15 ng/ml o ambas, (37% restante). Su SLPB es 46±6% y 26±7% (5 y 10 años). La SLPB es significativamente diferente entre ambos grupos (p<0,000). La SLPB del Grupo 1 es similar a la de los pacientes pT2 márgenes (-), (p=0,242). La SLPB del Grupo 2 es similar a la de los pT3 márgenes (+), (p=0,637). El modelo explica significativamente mejor la SLPB que cualquiera de las variables analizadas individualmente (estudio multivariado, modelo de Cox). CONCLUSIONES: En los pT2(+) el pronóstico es significativamente peor cuando la afectación es multifocal. Además pueden diferenciarse claramente dos grupos de pacientes desde el punto de vista de la SLPB según sus variables influyentes. Los datos sugieren que desde el punto de vista del pronóstico el segundo grupo está infraestadiado mientras que el primero está sobreestadiado

OBJECTIVES: We intend to analyze the prognostic value of positive surgical margins depending on their number and location in pT2 patients. METHODS: We analyze 448 (34.3%) patients with positive surgical margins from a series of 1,310 T1-T2 patients treated with radical prostatectomy between 1989-2012. Of them 164 are pT2(+). 119 (72.6%) have unifocal affectation (41 (34.5%) unifocal in right lobe; 35 (29.4%) unifocal in left lobe, 40 (33.6%) unifocal in apex, 3 (2.5%) unifocal proximal) and 45 (27.4%) multifocal involvement. RESULTS: Unifocal and multifocal pT2(+) patients have not evidenced significant differences in any of the clinicopathologic variables compared. However the BPFS at 5 and 10 years is significantly worse in the multifocal group, (p<0.000). In the BPFS multivariate study of 164 pT2(+)influential variables are: multifocal involvement (HR: 3.4; 95%IC 1.7-6.9 p<0.000) and PSA (HR: 1.03; 95%IC 1.02-1.05 p<0.000), being PSA >15 ng/ml (HR: 3.7; 95%IC 2.1-6.6 p<0.000) the best cut-off point. Risk groups: Using the independent influence variables, the best model (using Cox models) includes two risk groups: Group 1 (0 variables): They are pT2(+) with unifocal affectation and PSA<15 ng/ml, (63%). Their BPFS are 81±4% and 77±4% (5 and 10 years). Grupo 2 (1-2 variables): They are pT2(+) with multifocal involvement, PSA>15 ng/ml or both of them, (37%). Their BPFS are 46±6% and 26±7% (5 and 10 years). The BPFS differs significantly between the two groups (p<0.000). The Group 1 BPFS is similar to the pT2(-) patients, (p:0.242). The Group 2 BPFS is similar to the pT3(+) patients, (p:0.637). The model explained significantly better the BPFS than any of the individual variables analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: In pT2(+) patients the prognosis is significantly worse in multifocal involvement. In addition two groups of patients can be clearly distinguished from the BPFS point view according to their influential variables. The data suggest that since the prognostic point view the second group is understaged while the first is overstaged