Evaluation of Renal Function after Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy-Does the Number of Percutaneous Access Tracts Matter?

PURPOSE: Renal function following percutaneous nephrolithotomy has long been a concern to urologists, especially in the setting of multi-tract access. We determined whether the risk of renal injury after multi-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy was greater than after a single access approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 307 consecutive patients treated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy from 2011 to 2012 at Wake Forest Health. Perioperative (99m)Tc-mercaptoacetyltriglycine nuclear renogram parameters along with serum creatinine values were assessed within 1 year of the procedure. Patients were stratified by single access vs multi-access (2 or more). RESULTS: We identified 110 cases in which renography was done before and after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. A total of 74 patients (67.3%) underwent single access percutaneous nephrolithotomy while 36 (32.7%) underwent multi-access percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Serum creatinine did not significantly differ between the 2 cohorts postoperatively (p = 0.09). There was a significant 2.28% decrease in renal function based on mercaptoacetyltriglycine nuclear renogram results after percutaneous nephrolithotomy of the affected kidney in patients with multiple accesses (p <0.01). This relationship was not observed when patients were stratified by multiple comorbidities associated with nephrolithiasis. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-access percutaneous nephrolithotomy is associated with a small reduction in the function of the targeted kidney compared to a single access approach.

The scientific basis for the use of biomaterials in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

OBJECTIVES: To review the scientific and clinical literature to assess the basis for the use of biomaterials in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Pelvic floor diseases (PFDS), such as SUI and POP, are common and vexing disorders. While synthetic mesh-based repairs have long been considered an option for PFD treatment, and their efficacy established in randomised clinical trials, safety of its use has recently been called into question. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the PubMed, MEDLINE and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) databases, we performed a critical review of English-language publications that contained the following keywords: 'pelvic organ prolapse', 'stress urinary incontinence', 'mesh', 'biomaterial', 'collagen', 'elastin' and 'extracellular matrix'. After reviewing for relevance for mesh use in the pelvis by two independent reviewers with a third available in the case of disagreement, a total of 60 articles were included in the present review. RESULTS: We found that many of the potential causes of PFDs are due to altered metabolism of patient extracellular matrix (specifically collagen, elastin, and their respective enzymes) and as such, repairs using native tissue may suffer from the same abnormalities leading to a subsequent lack of repair integrity. However, mesh use is not without its unique risks. Several publications have suggested that biomaterials may undergo alteration after implantation, but these findings have not been demonstrated in the normal milieu. CONCLUSION: While the decision for the use of synthetic mesh is scientifically sound, its benefits and risks must be discussed with the patient in an informed decision-making process.

Evidence-based outcomes for mesh-based surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In light of all the recent controversy regarding the use of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse, we did a retrospective review of the evidence-based outcomes and complications for its use. RECENT FINDINGS: A total of 18 of the most recent studies in the last 5 years were selected. Studies selected were prospective randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that included surgical operations for pelvic organ prolapse for this review. Additionally, Cochrane review and meta-analysis of outcomes and complication were also analyzed. In terms of outcomes, the definition of successful surgery is currently being debated. Synthetic mesh provides superior anatomical and subjective cure rates compared with native tissue repair. Success rates varied greatly depending on the nature of prolapse and surgical approach. Furthermore, recurrence rates for mesh-based surgery are significantly lower than that for native tissue repair. The main unique complication of mesh is exposure and was reported in a mean of 11.4% of patients, with 6.8% of patients requiring surgical partial excision of mesh. SUMMARY: Mesh significantly improves anatomical outcomes with sacrocolpopexy and vaginal repair. Mesh does create the unique complication which can be reduced with training and proper patient selection. Further development of better materials is vital rather than reverting to tissue-based repair. Ultimately, the decision to use mesh should be based upon a patient's personal goals and preferences after an informed conversation with her physician.