Prostatitis: A Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pathologies of the prostate in men are one of the most prevalent clinical conditions today [1]. Specifically, pelvic inflammatory disease such as prostatitis can cause symptoms and syndromes different from urological ones, such as bowel or nervous system manifestations. This has a largely negative impact on the quality of life of patients. Therefore, it is convenient to know and update the information about the therapeutic approach to prostatitis, which is a challenge that involves different medical specialties. The aim of this article is to provide summarized and focused evidence to help in the therapeutic approach of patients with prostatitis. A computer-based search of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases was used to perform a comprehensive literature review on prostatitis, with special interest in recent findings and latest therapeutic guideline recommendations. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent discoveries about the epidemiology and clinical classifications of prostatitis seem to incur in an increasingly individualized and directed management, with the aim of covering all the confluent factors in prostatic inflammatory pathology. In addition, the role of new drugs and combination with phytotherapy open up a range of new treatment possibilities, although future randomized studies will be necessary to better understand how to use all treatment modalities. Despite all the knowledge acquired about the pathophysiology of prostate diseases, and due to their interrelation with other pelvic systems and organs, there are still gaps that make it difficult for us to provide an optimal and standardized treatment in many of our patients. Being aware of the influence of all the factors potentially involved in prostate symptoms is crucial for a correct diagnosis and establishing an effective treatment plan.

Impacto de la presentación tardía al servicio de Urgencias por cólico renal agudo en los resultados bioquímicos y clínicos / Impact of a delayed presentation to the emergency department for acute renal colic on biochemical and clinical outcomes

Introducción y objetivo Verificar el impacto en los resultados bioquímicos y clínicos de la demora en acudir al servicio de Urgencias (SU) ante un cólico renal agudo. Materiales y métodos Los datos se recogieron retrospectivamente en 3 instituciones de 2 países europeos, desde el 1 de enero hasta el 30 de abril del 2020. Se incluyó a los pacientes que acudieron a Urgencias con un cólico renal unilateral o bilateral causado por urolitiasis confirmada por imagen durante el periodo de estudio. La consulta en el SU después de 24 h desde el inicio de los síntomas se consideró tardía. Los pacientes que acudieron antes de las 24 h desde el inicio de los síntomas se incluyeron en el grupo A y los pacientes que se presentaron después de las 24 h se adjudicaron al grupo B. Se compararon los parámetros clínicos y bioquímicos, así como el manejo recibido por cada paciente. Resultados Se analizó a 397 pacientes que acudieron a Urgencias con urolitiasis confirmada (grupo A, n = 199; grupo B, n = 198). La mediana (RIC) de demora hasta la consulta fue de 2 días (1,5-4). En el momento de la consulta, no se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los 2 grupos de pacientes en cuanto a los síntomas como fiebre y dolor en el flanco, o la mediana de los niveles séricos de creatinina, proteína C reactiva y leucocitos. No se encontraron diferencias en cuanto al tratamiento conservador o quirúrgico. Conclusiones La demora > 24 h hasta acudir al SU no se asocia a un empeoramiento de los parámetros bioquímicos ni de los resultados clínicos. La mayoría de los pacientes con dolor lumbar agudo no siempre necesitan acudir de forma inmediata a urgencias, pudiendo ser tratados en consultas externas (AU)

Introduction and objective To verify the impact of delay on biochemical and clinical outcomes for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute renal colic. Materials and methods Data were retrospectively collected from 3 institutions of 2 European countries between 01 January and 30 April 2020. Patients who presented to the ED with unilateral or bilateral renal colic caused by urolithiasis confirmed by imaging tests during the study period were included. A presentation after 24 hours since the onset of symptoms was considered a delay. Patients presenting before 24 hours from the symptom onset were included in Group A, while the patients presenting after 24 hours in Group B. Clinical and biochemical parameters and management were compared. Results 397 patients who presented to ED with confirmed urolithiasis were analyzed (Group A, n = 199; Group B, n = 198. The median (IQR) delay in presentation was 2 days (1,5-4). At presentation, no statistically significant differences were found amongst the 2 groups of patients regarding presenting symptoms such as fever and flank pain, and the median serum levels of creatinine, C reactive protein and white blood cells. No differences were found in terms of conservative or operative management. Conclusions Delay in consultation >24 hours is not associated with worsening biochemical parameters and clinical outcomes. Most patients with acute loin pain do not necessarily need urgent attendance to the ED and may be managed in the outpatients (AU)

Impact of a delayed presentation to the emergency department for acute renal colic on biochemical and clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: To verify the impact of delay on biochemical and clinical outcomes for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute renal colic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from three institutions of two European countries between 01 January and 30 April 2020. Patients who presented to the ED with unilateral or bilateral renal colic caused by urolithiasis confirmed by imaging tests during the study period were included. A presentation after 24 h since the onset of symptoms was considered a delay. Patients presenting before 24 h from the symptom onset were included in Group A, while the patients presenting after 24 h in Group B. Clinical and biochemical parameters and management were compared. RESULTS: A total of 397 patients who presented to ED with confirmed urolithiasis were analyzed (Group A, n = 199; Group B, n = 198. The median (IQR) delay in presentation was 2 days (1,5-4). At presentation, no statistically significant differences were found amongst the two groups of patients regarding presenting symptoms such as fever and flank pain, and the median serum levels of creatinine, C reactive protein and white blood cells. No differences were found in terms of conservative or operative management. CONCLUSION: Delay in consultation >24 h is not associated with worsening biochemical parameters and clinical outcomes. Most patients with acute loin pain do not necessarily need urgent attendance to the ED and may be managed in the outpatients.

Valor pronóstico de la citología urinaria en la recidiva del carcinoma urotelial vesical tras la cistectomía radical / Prognostic value of urinary cytology for detecting urothelial carcinoma recurrence after radical cystectomy

Introducción: Las recidivas del carcinoma urotelial (CaU) en uretra o en el tracto urinario superior (TUS), tras una cistectomía radical (CR) son infrecuentes (4-6%), y su diagnóstico suele ocurrir en los 2 primeros años. Actualmente, no existen claras recomendaciones para la detección de recidivas en el urotelio remanente (UR), aunque se sabe que su detección precoz ofrece beneficios en la supervivencia. Nuestro objetivo es determinar el valor diagnóstico de la citología urinaria (CU) para la detección de recidivas en el UR y calcular su impacto como método de diagnóstico precoz en la supervivencia.Material y métodosRevisión retrospectiva de pacientes intervenidos de CR por CaU entre 2008-2016, con un seguimiento mayor de 24 meses.ResultadosSe incluyeron 142 pacientes. En una mediana de seguimiento de 68,5 meses, 9 pacientes (6,3%) presentaron recidivas en el UR (uretra: 4, TUS: 4, sincrónica: uno). La sensibilidad de la CU para el diagnóstico de recidivas en el TUS fue del 20% y la especificidad del 96%. No se encontraron diferencias significativas entre la supervivencia global y la supervivencia cáncer específica entre pacientes según el resultado de la CU.ConclusiónLas recidivas en el UR tras una CR son infrecuentes, y en nuestro estudio, hemos encontrado una baja sensibilidad para el diagnóstico de estas con CU. Por estas razones, no consideramos que la CU aporta información útil para el seguimiento de estos pacientes. (AU)

Introduction: Urethral or upper urinary tract (UUT) recurrence of urothelial carcinoma (UC) after radical cystectomy (RC) are rare (4-6%), and their diagnosis usually occurs within the first two years. Although it is known that its early detection offers benefit in terms of survival, currently there are no clear recommendations for the detection of recurrence in the remnant urothelium (RU). Our aim is to determine the diagnostic value of urinary cytology for the detection of recurrences in the RU and to estimate its impact as an early diagnostic method on survival.Material and methodsRetrospective review of patients who underwent RC for urothelial carcinoma between 2008-2016, with a follow-up of at least 24 months.ResultsThe study included 142 patients. In a median follow-up of 68.5 months, nine patients (6.3%) presented recurrences in the RU (urethra: four, UUT: four, synchronous: one). The sensitivity and specificity of urinary cytology for the diagnosis of UUT recurrences were 20% and 96%, respectively. No significant differences were found between overall survival and cancer-specific survival among patients according to the urinary cytology results.ConclusionRecurrences in the RU after RC are infrequent; our study has shown that urinary cytology offers a low sensitivity for their diagnoses. For these reasons, we do not consider that urinary cytology provides useful information for surveillance of these patients. (AU)

Prognostic value of urinary cytology for detecting urothelial carcinoma recurrence after radical cystectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Urethral or upper urinary tract (UUT) recurrence of urothelial carcinoma (UC) after radical cystectomy (RC) are rare (4-6%), and their diagnosis usually occurs within the first two years. Although it is known that its early detection offers benefit in terms of survival, currently there are no clear recommendations for the detection of recurrence in the remnant urothelium (RU). Our aim is to determine the diagnostic value of urinary cytology for the detection of recurrences in the RU and to estimate its impact as an early diagnostic method on survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of patients who underwent RC for urothelial carcinoma between 2008-2016, with a follow-up of at least 24 months. RESULTS: The study included 142 patients. In a median follow-up of 68.5 months, nine patients (6.3%) presented recurrences in the RU (urethra: four, UUT: four, synchronous: one). The sensitivity and specificity of urinary cytology for the diagnosis of UUT recurrences were 20% and 96%, respectively. No significant differences were found between overall survival and cancer-specific survival among patients according to the urinary cytology results. CONCLUSION: Recurrences in the RU after RC are infrequent; our study has shown that urinary cytology offers a low sensitivity for their diagnoses. For these reasons, we do not consider that urinary cytology provides useful information for surveillance of these patients.

Tratamiento del cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración y riesgo de interacciones farmacológicas en pacientes polimedicados / Treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer and drug interaction risk in polymedicated patients

INTRODUCCIÓN: La telemedicina ofrece un soporte clínico remoto utilizando herramientas tecnológicas. Puede facilitar la atención médica al tiempo que reduce las visitas innecesarias a la consulta. La pandemia COVID-19 ha provocado un cambio brusco en nuestra práctica urológica diaria convirtiéndose en algo muy necesario el acto de la teleconsulta. OBJETIVO: Proporcionar recomendaciones prácticas para el uso efectivo de herramientas tecnológicas en telemedicina. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda en la literatura en la plataforma Medline hasta abril de 2020; seleccionamos los artículos más relevantes relacionados con «telemedicina» y «trabajo inteligente» que podrían proporcionar información útil. RESULTADOS: La telemedicina se refiere al uso de la información electrónica y a las herramientas de telecomunicaciones para proporcionar apoyo clínico remoto a la atención médica. El trabajo inteligente es un modelo de trabajo que utiliza tecnologías nuevas o existentes para mejorar el rendimiento. La telemedicina se está convirtiendo en una herramienta útil y necesaria durante la pandemia COVID-19 e incluso más allá de la misma. Es hora de que formalicemos y demos el lugar que se merece a la telemedicina en nuestra práctica clínica y es nuestra responsabilidad adaptar y conocer todas las herramientas y posibles estrategias para su implementación de una manera óptima, garantizar una atención de calidad a los pacientes y que dicha atención sea percibida por pacientes y familiares como de alto nivel. CONCLUSIONES: La telemedicina facilita la atención clínica urológica especializada a distancia y resuelve problemas como las limitaciones en la movilidad o el traslado de los pacientes, reduce las visitas innecesarias a las clínicas y es útil para reducir el riesgo de transmisión viral de la COVID-19

INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine provides remote clinical support through technology tools. It can facilitate medical care delivery while reducing unnecessary office visits. The COVID-19 outbreak has caused an abrupt change in our daily urological practice, where teleconsultations play a crucial role. OBJECTIVE: To provide practical recommendations for the effective use of technological tools in telemedicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted on Medline until April 2020. We selected the most relevant articles related to «telemedicine» and «smart working» that could provide valuable information. RESULTS: Telemedicine refers to the use of electronic information and telecommunication tools to provide remote clinical health care support. Smart working is a working approach that uses new or existing technologies to improve performance. Telemedicine is becoming a useful and fundamental tool during the COVID-19 pandemic and will be even more in the future. It is time for us to officially give telemedicine the place it deserves in clinical practice, and it is our responsibility to adapt and familiarize with all the tools and possible strategies for its optimal implementation. We must guarantee that the quality of care received by patients and perceived by them and their families is of the highest standard. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine facilitates remote specialized urological clinical support and solves problems caused by limited patient mobility or transfer, reduces unnecessary visits to clinics and is useful to reduce the risk of COVID-19 viral transmission

Evaluación de las tendencias y presentación clínica de pacientes con cólico nefrítico que acuden al servicio de urgencias durante la era pandémica del COVID-19 / Assessment of trends and clinical presentation in the emergency department of patients with renal colic during the COVID-19 pandemic era

INTRODUCCIÓN: Nuestra hipótesis es que la pandemia por COVID-19, y el estado de alarma impuesto por los gobiernos, pueden haber retrasado las visitas a urgencias por cólicos nefríticos, debido al miedo a contagiarse en los centros sanitarios. Este atraso en acudir a los servicios de urgencias puede llevar a un empeoramiento clínico y aumentar las complicaciones relacionadas con la enfermedad o el tratamiento recibido. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Realizamos una revisión retrospectiva de 3 centros hospitalarios en España e Italia. Fueron incluidos pacientes atendidos en el servicio de urgencias por cólico renal (unilateral o bilateral) secundario a litiasis confirmadas en pruebas de imagen durante los 45 días previos y posteriores a la declaración del estado de alarma de cada país. Se recolectaron datos demográficos, síntomas y signos de presentación, análisis de sangre y orina, pruebas de imagen, y manejo terapéutico. El análisis estadístico se realizó entre dos grupos, Grupo A: pacientes que acudieron antes de la declaración del estado de alarma y Grupo B: pacientes que acudieron tras la declaración del estado de alarma. RESULTADOS: Un total de 397 pacientes que acudieron a urgencias por cólicos nefríticos secundarios a litiasis fueron incluidos en el estudio, 285 (71,8%) en el Grupo A y 112 (28,2%) en el Grupo B (p < 0,001). Un total de 135 (47,4%) en el Grupo A y 63 (56,3%) en el Grupo B (p = 0,11) admitieron haber pospuesto su búsqueda de atención médica urgente. En el momento de la valoración inicial, no se encontraron diferencias entre ambos grupos en los niveles de creatinina sérica, leucocitosis, fiebre, oliguria, dolor, o hidronefrosis. Además, no se observaron diferencias en relación con la estancia media, ingreso en el servicio de urología, o necesidad de tratamientos invasivos. CONCLUSIÓN: Nuestros resultados muestran una disminución significativa de atenciones en urgencias por cólicos nefríticos tras la declaración del estado de alarma en España e Italia. A diferencia de otros estudios publicados recientemente, no encontramos diferencias en la estancia media, ingreso al servicio de urología, o necesidad de tratamientos invasivos en pacientes que se presentaron antes y después del estado de alarma

INTRODUCTION: We hypothesized that the recent COVID-19 pandemic may lead to a delay in renal colic patients presenting to the Emergency Department due to the fear of getting infected. This delay may lead to a more severe clinical condition at presentation with possible complications for the patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of data collected from three institutions from Spain and Italy. Patients who presented to Emergency Department with unilateral or bilateral renal colic caused by imaging confirmed urolithiasis during the 45 days before and after each national lockdown were included. Data collected included patients’ demographics, biochemical urine and blood tests, radiological tests, signs, symptoms and the therapeutic management. Analysis was performed between two groups, Group A: patients presenting prior to the national lockdown date; and Group B: patients presenting after the national lockdown date. RESULTS: A total of 397 patients presented to Emergency Department with radiology confirmed urolithiasis and were included in the study. The number of patients presenting to Emergency Department with renal/ureteric colic was 285 (71.8%) patients in Group A and 112 (28.2%) patients in Group B (p < 0.001). The number of patients reporting a delay in presentation was 135 (47.4%) in Group A and 63 (56.3%) in Group B (p = 0.11). At presentation, there were no statistical differences between Group A and Group B regarding the serum creatinine level, C reactive protein, white blood cell count, fever, oliguria, flank pain and hydronephrosis. In addition, no significant differences were observed with the length of stay, Urology department admission requirement and type of therapy. CONCLUSION: Data from our study showed a significant reduction in presentations to Emergency Department for renal colic after the lockdown in Spain and Italy. However, we did not find any significant difference with the length of stay, Urology department admission requirement and type of therapy

Telemedicine and smart working: Spanish adaptation of the European Association of Urology recommendations. / Telemedicina y trabajo inteligente: adaptación al español de las recomendaciones de la Asociación Europea de Urología.

INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine provides remote clinical support through technology tools. It can facilitate medical care delivery while reducing unnecessary office visits. The COVID-19 outbreak has caused an abrupt change in our daily urological practice, where teleconsultations play a crucial role. OBJECTIVE: To provide practical recommendations for the effective use of technological tools in telemedicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted on Medline until April 2020. We selected the most relevant articles related to «telemedicine¼ and «smart working¼ that could provide valuable information. RESULTS: Telemedicine refers to the use of electronic information and telecommunication tools to provide remote clinical health care support. Smart working is a working approach that uses new or existing technologies to improve performance. Telemedicine is becoming a useful and fundamental tool during the COVID-19 pandemic and will be even more in the future. It is time for us to officially give telemedicine the place it deserves in clinical practice, and it is our responsibility to adapt and familiarize with all the tools and possible strategies for its optimal implementation. We must guarantee that the quality of care received by patients and perceived by them and their families is of the highest standard. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine facilitates remote specialized urological clinical support and solves problems caused by limited patient mobility or transfer, reduces unnecessary visits to clinics and is useful to reduce the risk of COVID-19 viral transmission.

Assessment of trends and clinical presentation in the emergency department of patients with renal colic during the COVID-19 pandemic era. / Evaluación de las tendencias y presentación clínica de pacientes con cólico nefrítico que acuden al servicio de urgencias durante la era pandémica del COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: We hypothesized that the recent COVID-19 pandemic may lead to a delay in renal colic patients presenting to the Emergency Department due to the fear of getting infected. This delay may lead to a more severe clinical condition at presentation with possible complications for the patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of data collected from three institutions from Spain and Italy. Patients who presented to Emergency Department with unilateral or bilateral renal colic caused by imaging confirmed urolithiasis during the 45 days before and after each national lockdown were included. Data collected included patients' demographics, biochemical urine and blood tests, radiological tests, signs, symptoms and the therapeutic management. Analysis was performed between two groups, Group A: patients presenting prior to the national lockdown date; and Group B: patients presenting after the national lockdown date. RESULTS: A total of 397 patients presented to Emergency Department with radiology confirmed urolithiasis and were included in the study. The number of patients presenting to Emergency Department with renal/ureteric colic was 285 (71.8%) patients in Group A and 112 (28.2%) patients in Group B (p<0.001). The number of patients reporting a delay in presentation was 135 (47.4%) in Group A and 63 (56.3%) in Group B (p=0.11). At presentation, there were no statistical differences between Group A and Group B regarding the serum creatinine level, C reactive protein, white blood cell count, fever, oliguria, flank pain and hydronephrosis. In addition, no significant differences were observed with the length of stay, Urology department admission requirement and type of therapy. CONCLUSION: Data from our study showed a significant reduction in presentations to Emergency Department for renal colic after the lockdown in Spain and Italy. However, we did not find any significant difference with the length of stay, Urology department admission requirement and type of therapy.