Voiding dynamics of pelvic organ prolapse: Large scale comparative study.

PURPOSE: To determine the voiding dynamics of the patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective patient file review was performed of 877 female patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. After exclusion criteria 373 female patients were eligible for the study. Two patient groups w/wo prolapse were identified. The symptoms, patient characteristics, patterns of free urine flow, and detrusor voiding pressure curves were compared between two groups. A comparison of the urodynamic findings between the subgroups (mild/moderate, severe, and w/o prolapse) was made and shown on a scatter plot graphics of Pdet Qmax versus Qmax as well. RESULTS: A total of 373 patients with median age 54 (18-92), 189 (51%) had varying degrees and forms of POP while 184 (49%) did not have any prolapse (p < 0.003). Logistic regression analysis results showed that older age [p = 0.023, odds ratio (OR) = 1.01, confidence interval (CI): (1.00-1.03)], weaker pelvic floor muscle strength [p = 0.032, OR = 1.67, CI: (1.04-2.69)], more frequent symptom of hesitancy [p = 0.003 OR = 2.15 CI: (1.29-3.58)], prolonged-tailed shaped curve pattern of free urine flow [p = 0.027 OR = 1.97 CI: (1.08-3.58)], and higher Pdet Qmax (22 cmH2 O) values [p = 0.002, OR = 1.02, CI: (1.00-1.03)] were the independent different features of the patients with prolapse. Subgroup urodynamic analysis showed significantly lower free flowmetry Qmax and higher Pdet Qmax values in patients with severe prolapse. Prolonged/tailed-shaped curve pattern of free urine flow was significantly more frequent in patients with prolapse. CONCLUSIONS: Voiding dynamics of the patients with prolapse were significantly different from the patients' w/o prolapse. They had higher Pdet Qmax values, more frequent symptom of hesitancy, and prolonged shaped free flow curve pattern. Free flow Qmax values were lower in patients with severe prolapse.

Distintos enfoques adoptados por los médicos para tratar la nefrolitiasis en pediatría: estudio basado en una encuesta / Different approaches among physicians to treat pediatric stone disease: a survey-based study

Introducción. Los pediatras, cirujanos y subespecialistas, como urólogos y nefrólogos pediátricos, participan en el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la nefrolitiasis pediátrica. El objetivo fue determinar los enfoques de distintas disciplinas y evaluar las diferencias en sus protocolos de diagnóstico y tratamiento habituales.Población y métodos. Cuestionario administrado a participantes de sesiones sobre nefrolitiasis en congresos nacionales en 2017 para evaluar las rutinas de diagnóstico y tratamiento de la nefrolitiasis entre distintas especialidades (cirujanos y pediatras) y subespecialidades (nefrólogos pediátricos y urólogos pediátricos).Resultados. Se analizaron 324 cuestionarios de 88 pediatras, 121 urólogos, 23 cirujanos pediátricos, 54 nefrólogos pediátricos y 38 urólogos pediátricos. Ambos grupos coincidieron en la necesidad de una evaluación metabólica. Para los cálculos ureterales distales ≥6 mm, los cirujanos preferían una ureteroscopía; los pediatras, una litotricia por ondas de choque (LOC) (p < 0,001); y los subespecialistas, una ureteroscopía (p = 0,636). Para los cálculos en la parte inferior de los cálices renales < 1 cm, los cirujanos y los subespecialistas preferían la LOC y los pediatras, la hidratación (p < 0,001; p = 0,371). Para los cálculos de entre 1,1 cm y 2 cm, los cirujanos preferían la cirugía retrógrada intrarrenal (CRIR) y la LOC, y los pediatras, la LOC (p = 0,001). Para los cálculos más grandes, los cirujanos y subespecialistas preferían la nefrolitotomía percutánea (NLP) y los pediatras, la LOC (p = 0,458; p = 0,001).Conclusión. Existen diferencias entre las disciplinas que participan activamente en el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la nefrolitiasis

Introduction. Pediatricians, surgeons and subspecialties as pediatric urology and nephrology are involved in the diagnosis and treatment of pediatric renal stone disease (RSD). The aim of this study was to determine diagnostic and treatment approaches, of different disciplines, and to assess differences in their routine diagnostic and treatment protocols.Population and methods. A questionnaire was designed and administered to the participants of the RSD sessions in national congresses of all disciplines in 2017 to evaluate the diagnostic and treatment routines of specialties (surgeons and pediatricians) and subspecialties (pediatric nephrologists and pediatric urologists) for RSD. Results. A total, of 324 questionnaires were analyzed, from 88 pediatricians (27 %), 121 urologists (37 %), 23 pediatric surgeons (7 %), 54 pediatric nephrologists (17 %), and 38 pediatric urologists (12 %). Both groups agreed on the necessity of metabolic evaluation. For distal ureter stones that were ≥ 6 mm; surgeons preferred ureteroscopy (URS), pediatricians preferred shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (p < 0.001) and subspecialties preferred URS for the treatment (p = 0.636). For lower calix stones less than 1 cm surgeons and subspecialists preferred SWL, while pediatricians preferred hydration (p < 0.001, p = 0.371). For the stone between 1.1 and 2 cm, surgeons preferred intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and SWL, pediatricians preferred SWL (p = 0.001). For larger stones, surgeons and subspecialists preferred percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and pediatricians preferred SWL (p = 0.458 p = 0.001). Pediatric urologist chose low-dose computerized tomography as a diagnostic radiologic evaluation (p = 0.029).Conclusion. There are differences between the disciplines who take an active role in diagnosis and treatment of RSD.

Different approaches among physicians to treat pediatric stone disease: a survey-based study. / Distintos enfoques adoptados por los médicos para tratar la nefrolitiasis en pediatría: estudio basado en una encuesta.

INTRODUCTION: Pediatricians, surgeons and subspecialties as pediatric urology and nephrology are involved in the diagnosis and treatment of pediatric renal stone disease (RSD). The aim of this study was to determine diagnostic and treatment approaches, of different disciplines, and to assess differences in their routine diagnostic and treatment protocols. POPULATION AND METHODS: A questionnaire was designed and administered to the participants of the RSD sessions in national congresses of all disciplines in 2017 to evaluate the diagnostic and treatment routines of specialties (surgeons and pediatricians) and subspecialties (pediatric nephrologists and pediatric urologists) for RSD. RESULTS: A total, of 324 questionnaires were analyzed, from 88 pediatricians (27 %), 121 urologists (37 %), 23 pediatric surgeons (7 %), 54 pediatric nephrologists (17 %), and 38 pediatric urologists (12 %). Both groups agreed on the necessity of metabolic evaluation. For distal ureter stones that were ≥ 6 mm; surgeons preferred ureteroscopy (URS), pediatricians preferred shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (p < 0.001) and subspecialties preferred URS for the treatment (p = 0.636). For lower calix stones less than 1 cm surgeons and subspecialists preferred SWL, while pediatricians preferred hydration (p < 0.001, p = 0.371). For the stone between 1.1 and 2 cm, surgeons preferred intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and SWL, pediatricians preferred SWL (p = 0.001). For larger stones, surgeons and subspecialists preferred percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and pediatricians preferred SWL (p = 0.458 p = 0.001). Pediatric urologist chose low-dose computerized tomography as a diagnostic radiologic evaluation (p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: There are differences between the disciplines who take an active role in diagnosis and treatment of RSD.

Introducción. Los pediatras, cirujanos y subespecialistas, como urólogos y nefrólogos pediátricos, participan en el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la nefrolitiasis pediátrica. El objetivo fue determinar los enfoques de distintas disciplinas y evaluar las diferencias en sus protocolos de diagnóstico y tratamiento habituales. Población y métodos. Cuestionario administrado a participantes de sesiones sobre nefrolitiasis en congresos nacionales en 2017 para evaluar las rutinas de diagnóstico y tratamiento de la nefrolitiasis entre distintas especialidades (cirujanos y pediatras) y subespecialidades (nefrólogos pediátricos y urólogos pediátricos). Resultados. Se analizaron 324 cuestionarios de 88 pediatras, 121 urólogos, 23 cirujanos pediátricos, 54 nefrólogos pediátricos y 38 urólogos pediátricos. Ambos grupos coincidieron en la necesidad de una evaluación metabólica. Para los cálculos ureterales distales ≥6 mm, los cirujanos preferían una ureteroscopía; los pediatras, una litotricia por ondas de choque (LOC) (p < 0,001); y los subespecialistas, una ureteroscopía (p = 0,636). Para los cálculos en la parte inferior de los cálices renales < 1 cm, los cirujanos y los subespecialistas preferían la LOC y los pediatras, la hidratación (p < 0,001; p = 0,371). Para los cálculos de entre 1,1 cm y 2 cm, los cirujanos preferían la cirugía retrógrada intrarrenal (CRIR) y la LOC, y los pediatras, la LOC (p = 0,001). Para los cálculos más grandes, los cirujanos y subespecialistas preferían la nefrolitotomía percutánea (NLP) y los pediatras, la LOC (p = 0,458; p = 0,001). Conclusión. Existen diferencias entre las disciplinas que participan activamente en el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la nefrolitiasis.

Risk factors predicting upper urinary tract deterioration in children with spinal cord injury.

AIM: The aim of this study is to determine the risk factors predicting upper urinary tract (UUT) deterioration in children with spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: The medical records of 108 children with SCI who were referred to our unit between 1996 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The data included general patient demographics, SCI characteristics, bladder management methods, presence of urinary tract infection, radiological evaluation of the UUT and lower urinary tract (LUT), and videourodynamic findings. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine the cutoff values of the maximum detrusor pressure during filling and the bladder volume ratio (BVR) for predicting UUT deterioration. Multivariate analyses were used to determine the risk factors predicting UUT deterioration. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 76 children. The median patient age was 15 years (2-17). The leading causes of SCI were motor vehicle accidents (44%) and fall (33%). UUT deterioration was identified in 33 patients (43%). Iatrogenic SCI etiology, abnormal radiological LUT findings, and detrusor pressures greater than 70 cmH2 O were found to be independent risk factors for UUT deterioration using regression analysis. In addition, ROC analysis revealed that a BVR less than 0.7 was the cutoff value for UUT deterioration in children with SCI. CONCLUSION: Abnormal radiological LUT findings, iatrogenic SCI etiology, detrusor pressure greater than 70 cmH2 O, and a BVR less than 0.7 were independent risk factors for UUT deterioration in children with SCI.