Antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent perioperative infection in urological surgery: a multicenter study.

We prospectively investigated the rates of incidence of surgical site infection (SSI), urinary tract infection (UTI), and remote infection (RI) in 4,677 patients who underwent urological surgery from January to December 2010, including 2,507 endourological cases, 1,276 clean cases, 807 clean-contaminated cases, and 87 contaminated cases involving bowel segments. A single dose of antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) was administered in the endourological, clean, and clean-contaminated surgery cases, except for patients who underwent transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PNL). AMP was administered within 72 h in TURP and PNL, and AMP was administered within 48 h in contaminated surgery cases. In cases of endourological surgery, UTI was observed in 4% and RI in 0%, and SSI, UTI, and RI were seen in 1%, 1%, and 1%, respectively, of clean surgery cases, in 3%, 3%, and 2%, respectively, of clean-contaminated surgery cases, and in 17%, 30%, and 10%, respectively, of contaminated surgery cases. In multivariate analysis of the risk factors for infection, operative time was a significant risk factor for UTI in endourological surgery, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score and operative time were significant risk factors for RI in clean surgery. No significant risk factor was found in analyses of clean-contaminated and contaminated surgery cases. A single-dose AMP regimen was shown to be effective and feasible for prevention of perioperative infection in urological surgery.

[Clinical study of carcinoma of the penis].

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 21 patients with penile carcinoma treated between January 1993 and February 2007. According to TMN classification (UICC 2002), 9, 8, 2 and 2 patients belonged to stages I, II, III and IV, respectively. During the follow up period of 4 to 144 months (median 15 months), the overall 5-year survival rate was 75.8%. All three patients having N2 died within one year. Lymph node metastasis (p = 0.001) and organ metastasis (p = 0.007) were found to be unfavorable prognostic factors for patients with penile cancer.

[Influence of blood cells in urine samples on results of screening for urothelial carcinoma with NMP22 bladder chek].

We compared the sensitivity of Bladder Chek NMP22 with that of urine cytology in bladder cancer patients. Further, we evaluated the usefulness of Bladder Chek NMP22 in patients with benign diseases such as cystitis, urolithiasis, and benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) and examined how blood cells in urine samples affect the results of Bladder Chek NMP22. Patients with macroscopic hematuria were excluded from this study. Of 77 bladder cancer patients, Bladder Chek NMP22 showed positive in 46.8%, while urine cytology in 33.8% (p = 0.16). Bladder Chek NMP22 and urine cytology showed positive in 31.8 and 0.0% in G1 (p = 0.004), 51.2 and 46.3% in G2 (p = 0.66) and 57.1 and 50% in G3 (p = 0.71); 44.4 and 88.9% in Tis (p = 0.052), 25.6 and 15.4% in Ta (p = 0.27), 72.2 and 33.3% in T1 (p = 0.02) and 81.8 and 54.5% in T2 or higher (p = 0.18), respectively. In bladder cancer patients with microscopic hematuria or pyuria, the positive rates of Bladder Chek NMP22 were 82.1 and 73.1%, respectively, whereas they were 26.5% (p < 0.001) and 33.3% (p = 0.002), respectively, in those without hematuria or pyuria. In 36 cystitis, 20 urolithiasis, and 19 BPH patients, the positive rates of Bladder Chek NMP22 were 58.3, 25.0 and 5.5%, respectively. Bladder Chek NMP22 showed higher sensitivity for detection of bladder cancer, especially in low-grade and low-stage cancers than urine cytology, but the result was likely affected by blood cells in urine samples. Thus, although Bladder Chek NMP22 may be less useful as the first device for screening of urothelial cancer in patients with hematuria or pyuria, it may show results of high quality when used in patients with negative urine cytology after excluding benign diseases.