Objectives Penile prosthesis insertion is a well-established therapeutic option in refractory ischemic priapism but there is a lack of standardization regarding the timing of surgery, the type of prosthesis (malleable or inflatable), as well as the possible complications. In this study, we retrospectively compared early versus delayed penile prosthesis insertion in patients with refractory ischemic priapism. Methods 42 male patients who presented with refractory ischemic priapism during the period between January 2019 and January 2022 were included in this study. All patients had malleable penile prosthesis insertion by four highly experienced consultants. Patients were divided into two groups based on the time of the prosthesis insertion. 23 patients had immediate insertion of the prosthesis within the first week of the onset of priapism while the remaining 19 patients had delayed prosthesis insertion three months or later after the onset of priapism. The outcome as well as the intra- and the postoperative complications were recorded. Results Postoperative complications such as prosthesis erosion and infection were higher among the early insertion group while the delayed insertion group had higher incidence of intraoperative complications such as corporal perforation and urethral injury. The insertion of the prosthesis was much more difficult among the delayed insertion group due to fibrosis which made dilatation of the corpora very difficult. The length and the width of the penile implant were significantly higher among the early insertion group as compared to the delayed insertion group. Conclusions Early penile prosthesis insertion for refractory ischemic priapism is a safe and effective treatment option as delayed prosthesis insertion is more difficult and challenging due to corporal fibrosis and is associated with higher complication.
Despite the earlier age at transplant, the previous urologic operations, and the high incidence of urinary tract infection after renal transplant, graft survival and functions after renal transplant were not significantly different between patients with abnormal and normal bladders over at least the first 10 years. Therefore, it is safe to transplant into abnormal bladders once they have been assessed, reconstructed if necessary, and managed appropriately.
The incidence of wound infection was significantly higher in group (A) than in group (B), (33% Vs 5%, P = 0.04). All other postoperative complications were not significantly different among both groups.
Objectives: Successful kidney transplant depends partly on the normal physiologic functioning of the bladder, which involves effective urine storage and emptying. The bladder may become abnormal owing to various urologic and neuropathic disorders. Patients with abnormal bladders need careful management before and after transplant. In this study, we aimed to determine the outcomes of renal transplants in relation to various causes of abnormal bladder. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 25 patients with abnormal bladder who received 30 renal transplants between 1990 and 2014. The patients were divided into neurologic and urologic groups based on the causes of abnormal bladder. Patient demographics, graft function, survival, and postoperative complications were compared. Results: The most common urologic cause was posterior urethral valve (14 patients), while the most common neurologic cause was spina bifida (6 patients). There was no statistically significant difference in graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years between patients with neurologic and urologic causes of abnormal bladder as well as at long-term follow-up. However, the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1, 3, and 5 years was higher among patients with neurologic causes than in those with urologic causes, although the difference was statistically significant only at 1 year (61 ± 34 vs 37 ± 19 mL/min; P = .025). Stone formation was reported only in patients whose abnormal bladder had neurologic causes, and no incidence was reported in patients with urologic causes (20% vs 0%; P = .038). The incidence of other postoperative complications was not statistically significant between the 2 groups. Conclusions: With careful evaluation and proper preoperative correction of abnormal bladder dysfunction and optimization of the emptying and storage functions of the bladder, the causes of abnormal bladder did not appear to impact graft function and survival or overall rate of postoperative complications.
Objectives: Correction of structural urologic disorders and optimization of emptying and storage function of the bladder should be achieved before renal transplant in patients with abnormal urinary bladders to protect the new transplanted kidney. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of renal transplant among the differently treated abnormal bladder patients. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study of 30 renal transplant recipients with abnormal bladders who were divided into 2 groups based on abnormal bladder management. Group A included 12 patients who required surgical procedures for their bladder, including 6 with augmentation cystoplasty, 1 with Mitrofanoff procedure, 2 with ileal conduit, 1 with vesicostomy, and 2 who required artificial urinary sphincter. Group B included 18 patients who were treated with oral anticholinergics or beta-3 sympathomimetic drugs, clean intermittent catheterization, suprapubic catheterization, or a combination of these options. Graft function, survival, and complications were compared between both groups. Results: Mean estimated glomerular filtration rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were higher in group A than in group B but not statistically significant. We also found no significant differences in graft survival between the 2 groups. Among all postoperative complications, only incidence of wound infection was significantly higher in group A than in group B (33% vs 5%; P = .04). Conclusions: The options of abnormal bladder treatment (either by surgical procedures or other methods of treatment) did not have an impact on graft outcome after renal transplant as long as a safe and suitable bladder was achieved.
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.