Anatomical outcomes and complications of sacrocolpopexy using Surelift Uplift mesh: A multicentric observational study.

OBJECTIVE: The study evaluated the anatomical and functional outcomes, as well as the safety data of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using a lightweight macroporous mesh. METHODS: A multicentric observational study was developed including five expert centers between March 2011 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria were female patients with symptomatic ≥stage II POP (POP-Q classification), who underwent a LSC. A lightweight and macroporous mesh device (Surelift Uplift) was used. Baseline anatomical positions were evaluated using POP-Q stage. The anatomical outcomes and procedural complications were assessed during the postoperative period. Primary outcomes were anatomical success, defined as POP-Q stage ≤I, and subjective success, defined as no bothersome bulge symptoms, and no repeat surgery or pessary use for recurrent prolapse. RESULTS: A total of 325 LSCs were analyzed with a median patient age of 66 (interquartile range [IQR] 61-73). After a median follow-up of 68 months (IQR 46.5-89), anatomical success was found in 88.9%, whereas subjective success was seen in 98.5% of the patients. Recurrent prolapse presented as cystocele (1.5%). Reported complications were bladder (4.6%) or rectum lesions (0.6%), de novo urinary incontinence (12.9%), and mesh extrusion (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: LSC provides significant clinical improvement and excellent anatomical results, with a low risk of serious complications for women with ≥2 grade POP in a real clinical practice setting.

Is detrusor underactivity associated with voiding dysfunction after single incision sling surgery?

BACKGROUND: Some women experience voiding dysfunction after stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery. We explore if detrusor underactivity (DU) found in urodynamic study (UDS) prior to SUI surgery using an adjustable single incision sling (SIS) may be related to voiding dysfunction after surgery. METHODS: This is a prospective, diagnostic, transversal, single center study comparing voiding dysfunction after SUI surgery with a SIS (Altis®; Coloplast, Humlebæk, Denmark) between women with DU (cases) or normal detrusor (controls). Inclusion criterium was women ≥18 years with SUI/mixed UI (stress predominant) operated between June 2013 and December 2020. Exclusion criteria were: women without UDS prior to surgery or without voiding phase in the P/Q, previous incontinence surgery, POP stage ≥2, neurogenic conditions, other pelvic floor surgery. Urinary symptoms were assessed using structured questions evaluating storage/voiding symptoms. Patients were divided into two groups according to projected Isovolumetric Pressure Index (PIP1) with 30-75 cmH2O indicating normal contractility. RESULTS: A total of 139 women were included, 29 (20.9%) in DU group and 110 (79.1%) in control group. Control and DU groups have shown similar objective (75.5% vs. 71.4% P=0.66) and subjective (85.4% vs. 96.1% P=0.22) success rates, respectively, without statistical differences. Voiding symptoms increased after surgery in both groups (+20.7% DU group vs. +8.1% normal group, P=0.29). More voiding symptoms (persistent/de novo) were found in DU group vs. normal group, but without statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: According to our results, the presence of DU previous to SUI surgery with a SIS (Altis®, Coloplast) has no impact on objective and subjective success rates. On the other hand, patients with preoperative DU showed higher proportion of voiding dysfunction but no statistical difference.

[Reconstructive surgery protocol recommendations during COVID-19 pandemia.] / Recomendaciones de actuación en cirugía reconstructiva urológica durante la pandemia Covid-19.

OBJECTIVES: Offer some recommendations or guidelines during the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of diagnosis, treatment and follow-upin the field of Reconstructive Urology. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The document is based on the evidence on SARS/Cov-2 and the authors' experience in managing COVID-19 in their institutions, including specialists from Andalusia, Madrid, Cantabria,the Valencian Community and Catalonia. A web and PubMed search was performed using "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19", "COVID-19 Urology", "COVID19 urology complications", "COVID-19 reconstructive surgery".A narrative review of the literature was carried out (5/17/2020) and after the nominal group technique modified due to the extraordinary restrictions, a first draft was made to unify criteria and reach a quick consensus. Finally, a definitive version was made, agreed by all the authors (5/22/2020). RESULTS: The authors defined the following surgical priorities for Urological Reconstructive Surgery: Emergency/Urgency (life-threatening or emergencies still in anormal situation), Elective Urgency/High priority (potentially dangerous pathology if postponed for more than 1month), Elective Surgery/Intermediate priority (pathology with little probability of being dangerous but it is recommended not to delay more than 6 months), Delayed surgery/Low priority (non-dangerous pathology if it is postponed for more than 6 months). According to this classification, the Working Group agreed on the distribution of the different surgical scenarios of Reconstructive Urology. In addition, consensus was reached on recommendations regarding the diagnosis and follow-up of pathology in the field of Reconstructive Urology. CONCLUSIONS: Tools should be implemented to facilitate the gathering of the medical visit and diagnostic tests. Redistribution of surgical procedures based on priority degrees is necessary during the pandemic and transition period. The use of telemedicine is essential forfollow-up, by computer, telephone or videoconference.

OBJETIVOS: Establecer unas recomendaciones o guía de actuación durante la evolución de la pandemia COVID-19 en cuanto al diagnóstico, tratamiento y seguimiento en el campo de la Urología Reconstructiva.MATERIAL y MÉTODO: El documento se basa en la evidencia sobre SARS/Cov-2 y la experiencia de los autores en el manejo de COVID-19 en sus instituciones, incluyendo especialistas de Andalucía, Madrid, Cantabria, Comunidad Valenciana y Cataluña. Se realizó una búsqueda web y en PubMed utilizando "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19", "COVID-19 Urology", "COVID19 urology complications", "COVID-19 reconstructive surgery". Se realizó una revisión narrativa de  la literatura (17/5/2020) y tras la técnica de grupo nominal modificada debido a las restricciones extraordinarias, se realizó un primer borrador para unificar criterios y llegar a un rápido consenso. Finalmente, se realizó una versión definitiva, consensuada por todos los autores el 22/5/2020. RESULTADOS: Los autores definieron para la Cirugía Urológica Reconstructiva las siguientes prioridades quirúrgicas: Emergencia/Urgencia (Riesgo vital o urgencias aún en situación de normalidad), Urgencia Electiva/Alta prioridad (Patología potencialmente peligros asi se pospone más de 1 mes), Cirugía Electiva/Prioridad intermedia (Patología con poca probabilidad de ser peligrosa pero se recomienda no retrasar más de 6 meses), Cirugía demorable/Baja prioridad (Patología no peligrosa si se pospone más de 6 meses). Acorde a esta clasificación, el Grupo de Trabajo consensuó la distribución de los diferentes escenarios quirúrgicos de la Urología Reconstructiva. Además, se llegó a consenso sobre recomendaciones en cuanto al diagnóstico y seguimiento de la patología en el ámbito de la Urología Reconstructiva. CONCLUSIONES: Deben implementarse mecanismos que faciliten la agrupación de la visita médica y pruebas diagnósticas. La redistribución de los procedimientos quirúrgicos en función de los grados de prioridad es imprescindible durante el periodo de pandemia y de transición. El empleo de la telemedicina es necesario para el seguimiento, mediante vía informática, telefónica o videoconferencia.

Recomendaciones de actuación en cirugía reconstructiva urológica durante la pandemia Covid-19 / Reconstructive surgery protocol recommendations during COVID-19 pandemia

OBJETIVOS: Establecer unas recomendaciones o guía de actuación durante la evolución de la pandemia COVID-19 en cuanto al diagnóstico, tratamiento y seguimiento en el campo de la Urología Reconstructiva. MATERIAL y MÉTODO: El documento se basa en la evidencia sobre SARS/Cov-2 y la experiencia de los autores en el manejo de COVID-19 en sus instituciones, incluyendo especialistas de Andalucía, Madrid, Cantabria, Comunidad Valenciana y Cataluña. Se realizó una búsqueda web y en PubMed utilizando "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19", "COVID-19 Urology", "COVID19 urology complications", "COVID-19 reconstructive surgery". Se realizó una revisión narrativa de la literatura (17/5/2020) y tras la técnica de grupo nominal modificada debido a las restricciones extraordinarias, se realizó un primer borrador para unificar criterios y llegar a un rápido consenso. Finalmente, se realizó una versión definitiva, consensuada por todos los autores el 22/5/2020. RESULTADOS: Los autores definieron para la Cirugía Urológica Reconstructiva las siguientes prioridades quirúrgicas: Emergencia/Urgencia (Riesgo vital o urgencias aún en situación de normalidad), Urgencia Electiva/Alta prioridad (Patología potencialmente peligros asi se pospone más de 1 mes), Cirugía Electiva/Prioridad intermedia (Patología con poca probabilidad de ser peligrosa pero se recomienda no retrasar más de 6 meses), Cirugía demorable/Baja prioridad (Patología no peligrosa si se pospone más de 6 meses). Acorde a esta clasificación, el Grupo de Trabajo consensuó la distribución de los diferentes escenarios quirúrgicos de la Urología Reconstructiva. Además, se llegó a consenso sobre recomendaciones en cuanto al diagnóstico y seguimiento de la patología en el ámbito de la Urología Reconstructiva. CONCLUSIONES: Deben implementarse mecanismos que faciliten la agrupación de la visita médica y pruebas diagnósticas. La redistribución de los procedimientos quirúrgicos en función de los grados de prioridad es imprescindible durante el periodo de pandemia y de transición. El empleo de la telemedicina es necesario para el seguimiento, mediante vía informática, telefónica o videoconferencia

OBJECTIVES: Offer some recommendations or guidelines during the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up in the field of Reconstructive Urology. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The document is based on the evidence on SARS/Cov-2 and the authors' experience in managing COVID-19 in their institutions, including specialists from Andalusia, Madrid, Cantabria, the Valencian Community and Catalonia. A web and PubMed search was performed using "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19", "COVID-19 Urology", "COVID19 urology complications", "COVID-19 reconstructive surgery". A narrative review of the literature was carried out (5/17/2020) and after the nominal group technique modified due to the extraordinary restrictions, a first draft was made to unify criteria and reach a quick consensus. Finally, a definitive version was made, agreed by all the authors (5/22/2020). RESULTS: The authors defined the following surgical priorities for Urological Reconstructive Surgery: Emergency/ Urgency (life-threatening or emergencies still in a normal situation), Elective Urgency/High priority (potentially dangerous pathology if postponed for more than 1 month), Elective Surgery/Intermediate priority (pathology with little probability of being dangerous but it is recommended not to delay more than 6 months), Delayed surgery/Low priority (non-dangerous pathology if it is postponed for more than 6 months). According to this classification, the Working Group agreed on the distribution of the different surgical scenarios of Reconstructive Urology. In addition, consensus was reached on recommendations regarding the diagnosis and follow-up of pathology in the field of Reconstructive Urology. CONCLUSIONS: Tools should be implemented to facilitate the gathering of the medical visit and diagnostic tests. Redistribution of surgical procedures based on priority degrees is necessary during the pandemic and transition period. The use of telemedicine is essential for follow-up, by computer, telephone or videoconference

Central Body Fat Mass Measured by Bioelectrical Impedanciometry But Not Body Mass Index Is a High-Grade Prostate Cancer Risk Factor.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between body fat mass distribution measured by bioelectrical impedanciometry (BEI) and high-grade prostate cancer (HGPC). METHODS: We prospectively analyze 323 patients who underwent prostate biopsy. BEI was performed prior to biopsy. Prostate cancer (PC) was stratified according to D'Amico classification. For univariate analysis, Student t test was done. For multivariate analysis, bivariate logistic regression was performed using PSA, body mass index (BMI), percentage central body fat, percentage total body fat, and visceral fat as explicative variables for the diagnosis of HGPC. RESULTS: PC was found in 134 patients. Thirty seven (27.2%) were HGPC. This group had higher age, PSA, and percentage central body fat (p = 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.04). BMI showed no association with HRPC. Age, PSA, and percentage central body fat (OR 1,123, 95% CI 1,022-1,233, p = 0.001) were independent risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Central body fat measured by BEI could explain the association between obesity and HGPC better than BMI suggesting the use of this technique to study body fat distribution.

Resonancia magnética con angiogénesis y espectroscopia frente a biopsia antes de la prostatectomía radical / MRI with angiogenesis and spectroscopy versus biopsy prior to radical prostatectomy

Evaluar la eficacia de la resonancia magnética nuclear (RNM) con angiogénesis/espectroscopia frente a la biopsia y tablas de Partin para el diagnóstico de unilateralidad, estadiaje tumoral y grado del cáncer de próstata (CaP) antes de la prostatectomía radical. Material y métodos: Se realizó un estudio prospectivo sobre 43 pacientes diagnosticados con CaP mediante biopsia transrrectal. Tras al menos 8 semanas, a todos los pacientes se les realizó un estudio morfológico con RNM pelviana de forma cegada al informe de la biopsia. Se completó con estudio espectroscópico y angiogénico. Los hallazgos de las tres técnicas se compararon con los correspondientes en la pieza de prostatectomía. Se obtuvieron la sensibilidad,la especificidad y los valores predictivos positivo/negativo para la lateralidad, la estadificación local y el grado biológico. Para comparar la eficacia diagnóstica entre ellas se obtuvo el cociente de probabilidad positivo (CP). Resultados: Los promedios de la edad y el antígeno prostático específico (PSA) de los pacientes fueron 64.4 + 6.8 años y 8.4 + 4.2 ng/ml, respectivamente. El grado de Gleason de la pieza fue:< 6 en 8 pacientes (18.6%), 7 (3 4) en 17 (39.5%), 7 (4 3) en 7 (16.3%) y > 8 en 11 (25.6%). El 41.9%(18 pacientes) presentó un grado de Gleason alto (7 (4 3) o > 8). Los estadios patológicos más frecuentes fueron: pT2b, en 18 pacientes (41.9%) y pT3a, en 8 pacientes (18.6%). Conclusiones: Aunque se tratade una serie corta, la información aportada por la espectroscopia/angiogénesis mejora la derivada de la RNM pelviana,aunque la biopsia y tabas de Partin actualmente continúan siendo el mejor método para el diagnóstico y estadificación del CaP...

Utilidad de la ecografía vésico-prostática en el diagnóstico de obstrucción/hiperactividad en varones con HBP / Usefulness of bladder-prostate ultrasound in the diagnosis of obstruction/hyperactivity in males with BPH

OBJETIVO: Determinar la utilidad de la ecógrafía prostática para el diagnóstico de obstrucción infravesical(OIV) y del detrusor hiperactivo(DH).MÉTODOS: Estudio prospectivo sobre 39 pacientes que consultaron por STUI. Se realizó historia clínica, IPSS, tacto rectal, ecografía abdominal midiendo grosor del detrusor, peso del detrusor, volumen prostático, longitud lóbulo medio(LLM) y estudio urodinámico (EUD) con obtención del número de Abrams-Griffiths y nomograma ICS. Se compararon medias con el test de U Mann-Whitney y se construyeron curvas ROC determinando los puntos de corte óptimos de sensibilidad y especificidad, con una significación estadística p < 0.05.RESULTADOS: La edad media de los 39 pacientes fue 63,1 años(DE:7,8 años) con IPSS medio de 14 puntos(DE:6) siendo la puntuación media de los síntomas de urgencia de 5,9 puntos(DE:3,1).El 53,8% de pacientes presentaron OIV en el EUD y el 43,6% DH. Resultaron significativas las diferencias entre el Qmax de la flujometría libre(p=0,015) y la LLM(p=0,003) entre los pacientes con OIV y los que no . Las curvas ROC mostraron un área bajo la curva para la LLM de 0,772 con punto de mayor sensibilidad y especificidad en 10,5mm(S:90%,E:73%,VPP:76%,VPN:85%). No hubieron diferencias en ningún parámetro entre pacientes con y sin DH.CONCLUSIONES: La medición de la LLM mediante ecografía en pacientes con STUI presenta una alta sensibilidad/especificidad para el diagnóstico de OIV con punto de corte 10,5mm. Es bien tolerada, económica y rápida. En nuestro estudio no se ha mostrado como una prueba eficaz en el diagnóstico no invasivo del hiperactividad del DH(AU)

OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of prostate ultrasound in the diagnosis of infravesical obstruction (IVO) and detrusor hyperactivity(DH).METHODS: Prospective study with 39 patients consulting for LUTS. Clinical history was compiled, IPSS was determined, a digital rectal exam was performed, abdominal ultrasound was used to calculate detrusor thickness/weight, prostate volume, and middle lobe length (MLL). Urodynamic study (UD) was performed with determination of the Abrams-Griffiths number and ICS nomogram. Mean values were compared with Mann-Whitney U-test, and ROC curves were plotted determining the cutoff points for optimum sensitivity/specificity.RESULTS: Mean age was 63.1 years (SD: 7.8), with a mean IPSS score of 14 (SD: 6). 53.8% of the patients presented IVO at UD evaluation, and 43.6% DH. The differences between free flowmetry Qmax(p=0.015) and MLL (p=0.003) between patients with and without IVO proved significant. The ROC curves yielded an AUC for middle lobe length of 0.772, with a maximum sensitivity and specificity cutoff point at 10.5 mm (sensitivity 90%, specificity 73%, PPV 76%, NPV 85%). There were no significant differences in any parameter between patients with and without DH.CONCLUSION: Ultrasound MLL measurement in patients with LUTS offers high sensitivity/specificity in diagnosing IVO, with a cutoff point of 10.5 mm. In our study it wasn’t effective in the noninvasive diagnosis of DH(AU)