Objectives: This open label, phase I clinical trial (NCT02945462) using 2 consecutive intracavernous autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs) for the first time in the treatment of diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction (ED). The primary outcome is to assess the safety and tolerability of intracavernous autologous BM-MSCs, the secondary outcome is to assess efficacy of the procedure. Patients and Methods: Four diabetic patients with refractory ED were included. Two consecutive intracavernous autologous BM-MSC injections were performed. Tolerability was assessed immediately and at 24 h, safety was evaluated for 2 years. Efficacy was assessed using International Index of Erectile Function-15 (IIEF-15) and Erection Hardness Score (EHS) for 12 months. Results: procedure was well tolerated and no patients reported significant adverse effects. There was significant improvement of IIEF-15 and EHS; IIEF-15 (p = 0.04), Erectile Function (p = 0.03), Sexual Desire (p = 0.04), Intercourse Satisfaction (p = 0.04), and Overall Satisfaction (p = 0.04). Conclusion: This is the first human study with proven tolerability, safety and efficacy of intracavernous autologous BM-MSC injections for treatment of diabetic patients with ED.
A 29-year-old man with hypospadias and bilateral undescended testicles presented with recurrent attacks of lower urinary tract infections and painful ejaculation. He was diagnosed to have very large bilateral seminal vesicle stones. The pelvis X-ray showed two radio-densities located in the pelvis with symmetrical appearance while Ultrasound showed them as echogenic structures with posterior acoustic shadowing. In magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pelvis they appeared hypointense in both T1-weighted and T2-weighted images while pelvic computed tomography scan (CT scan) showed bilateral huge stones in the seminal vesicles. The stones were extracted by open surgery through the bladder after transurethral excision of the ejaculatory ducts. Here, we report the first case of bilateral, large, heart-shaped, calcium oxalate monohydrate of seminal vesicle caliculi with brief literature review.
Background and Objectives: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging disease threatening the world with a rapid increase in cases and deaths since it was first identified in December 2019. Adequate knowledge, practice, and attitudes (KPA) toward COVID-19 among physicians at the frontline defense against the COVID-19 pandemic may enhance their ability to avoid the risk of self-infection, decrease mortality, and provide adequate medical care service in this pandemic. This study aimed to assess KPA toward COVID-19 among physicians in Jordan and Palestine. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study using an online survey conducted from 10 April to 26 April 2020 among Jordan and Palestine physicians. Invitations were sent to physician groups on Facebook and WhatsApp. This survey contains 36-items, divided into four main sections to assess the participants' socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge, practice, and attitude about COVID-19. Results: A total of 454 physicians participated in this study. The mean score of basic knowledge was 4.4 ± 0.8 (range 2-4). There were significant differences between basic knowledge mean scores among physicians in different professional degrees and physicians in various health sectors (P=0.0315, P=0.0137, respectively). The mean scores of selfprotection measures, were 6.1 ± 1.1 (range 3-7) and measures if physician self-suspected of COVID-19 were 9.9± 1.1 (range 5-11). The mean score of attitudes toward COVID-19 was 41.5 ± 3.3 (range 21-45) and significantly related to the age and different experience years (P=0.0022, P=0.0077, respectively). Conclusion:As the global threat of COVID-19 continues to emerge, physicians from Jordan and Palestine showed adequate KPA toward COVID-19. There was a significant difference in knowledge level and attitude between physicians. Policymakers and physicians should keep continuous educational activities, training, and follow-up updates during this pandemic.
Uncertainty remains whether it is best for men to void in a sitting or standing position. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of standing and sitting voiding position on uroflowmetry parameters and post void residual urine (PVRU) in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) and healthy men. A total of 116 participants with BPH (Group 1) and 78 healthy men (Group 2) were enrolled in the study. The uroflowmetry parameters were measured in both positions. The PVRU volume was measured using transabdominal ultrasound after each voiding. Uroflowmetry parameters and PVRU were measured and compared between the two different voiding positions using Wilcoxon signed rank test. In Group 1, there were significant statistical differences in uroflowmetry parameters between standing and sitting voiding position. The median of maximum flow rate in Group 1 in standing and sitting position was 14.7 ml/s (IQR; 11.7–17.5) and 11 ml/s (IQR; 8.9–13.3), respectively ( p < .0001). The median voided volume at standing position was 340 ml (IQR; 276–455) while it was 267 ml (IQR; 194–390) at sitting position ( p < .0001). Median average flow rate in standing position was 5.9 ml/s (IQR; 4.5–7.5) and 5 ml (IQR; 3.2–6.4) in sitting position. There was a statistically significant difference between the median of PVRU in standing and sitting position ( p < .0001). In patients with BPH, voiding in standing position showed better uroflowmetry parameters and significant less PVRU volume.
Objective: To compare three groups of patients who underwent uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and to evaluate whether stenting could be eliminated after the procedure, as there is no consensus about whether a ureteric stent should be placed after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone retrieval. Patients and methods: In this randomised clinical trial (NCT04145063) 105 patients underwent uncomplicated URSL for ureteric stones. They were prospectively randomised into three groups: Group 1 (34 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent, Group 2 (35 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string, and Group 3 (36 patients) with no ureteric stent placed after the procedure. The outcomes measured were: postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score for flank pain and dysuria score, urgency, frequency, suprapubic pain, haematuria, analgesia requirement, operative time, re-hospitalisation, and return to normal physical activity. Results: The mean (SD) operative time was significantly longer in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3, at 22.2 (9.1), 20.2 (6) and 15.1 (7.1) min, respectively (P < 0.001). The results of the VAS for flank pain and dysuria scores, urgency, frequency, haematuria, and suprapubic pain showed a significant difference at all time-points of follow-up, being significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3 (all P < 0.001). Further analysis showed that measured outcomes, and analgesia need for groups 1 and 2 were similar, at all time-points except at week 1 and 1 month where Group 2 patients' had less symptoms (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Double pigtail ureteric stent placement appears to be unnecessary in procedures considered 'uncomplicated' by operating urologists during surgery. The advantages of the double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string over the double pigtail ureteric stent only include earlier and easier removal with earlier relief of symptoms, and less analgesia requirements.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.