[Endoscopic treatment with Deflux for primary vesicoureteral reflux]. / Resultado del tratamiento endoscópico con Deflux en el reflujo vesicoureteral primario.

PURPOSE: Effectivety for endoscopic treatment for primary reflux has been under discussion as a single procedure. In the last 3 years our unit have been used Deflux, (dextranomer copolymer in hialuronic acid) for this pathology. The aim of this study is to analyze the results of our experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Since 2002, a prospective protocol for VUR has been applied. We reviewed the last 25 cases treated with Deflux per thousand injection who had ultrasound and cistography. RESULTS: 86% (n = 21) were females and with a mean age of 6.1 years (range 2-14) the success rate with a single injection was 73.6% (n = 28). The amount of deflux injected was irrelevant in the result. The results in the low grades reflux (I-II) reaching the 100% (n = 15). The worse result was in the double system cases with just one successful case out of 6 injected. The procedure was in outpatient bases. There were no peri-procedures complications. CONCLUSIONS: The endoscopic treatment for VUR with Deflux, is a good alternative to medical treatment especially in single ureter with low grade. Therefore the authors recommend this technique at the time of counseling parents.

[Comparison of the use of local anaesthetic versus lidocaine injection under ultrasound guide for the pain control in patients undergoing prostate biopsy]. / Comparación del uso de anestésico local versus inyección de lidocaína bajo guía ecográfica para el control del dolor en pacientes sometidos a biopsia de próstata.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the lidocaine gel's application effect versus the periprostatic placement of lidocaine to manage the pain in patients who go through a prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHOD: We took the patients who entered the FCI-IC to effectuate a prostate biopsy with an echographic guideline. The patients were split in two groups of 22 people with each one bearing similar characteristics. One of these groups experimented the previous prostate biopsy with 10cc of intrarectal lidocaine gel and the other group experimented 10 cc of lidocaine to 1% in the vesic-prostatic through echographic guidelines. To evaluate the pain, we used the visual analogue scale to gauge the pain during and after the procedure in both groups. The daily procedure to do biopsies by octants and their subsequent preparation remained the same and never changed. RESULTS: The average scale of pain during the procedure was 2.0 for the group with injected anaesthesia and 4.77 for the group who used gel. After the procedure the average of pain was 0.77 and 3.14 respectively. Some complications as bacteremy were present in 3 patients (6.8%) of the total, who were in the gel group and none were found in the group of injected anestesia. No significant relation was found with respect to other variables. CONCLUSIONS: the application of periprostatic lidocaine is efficient to control the pain in patients who go through a prostate biopsy. Besides, it is a safe procedure which can be easily reproduce in our environment.