No abstract

drugs versus non-drug active therapies for non-neurogenic overactive bladder syndrome in adults.

Adoption of NeuroSAFE allowed us to offer NS in higher risk patients, whilst reducing PSM rates and at the same time improving potency at 12 months.

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma (UUT‐TCC) is an aggressive disease. The mainstay in the treatment of UUT‐TCC is surgical intervention, with oncological control the primary objective. UUT‐TCCs have been conventionally treated with radical nephroureterectomy (NU). This procedure involves removal of the kidney, ureter and ipsilateral excision of a bladder cuff. Whilst open NU has traditionally been the approach used, laparoscopic NU (LNU) is now an increasingly popular and established approach for UUT‐TCC. It is argued that LNU reduces postoperative morbidity without compromising oncological efficacy. With technological evolution, robotic NU has now been attempted in some centres as well. In addition, several techniques have been described to manage the bladder cuff with no agreement as to the most efficacious approach. In a further attempt to reduce morbidity and safeguard nephrons, there have been advocates of a number of nephron‐sparing techniques, e.g. ureteroscopic management, percutaneous approaches, and distal ureterectomy. These approaches obviously raise concern on oncological efficacy with requirement for more stringent long‐term surveillance protocols. This study comprehensively reviews and summarises the evidence comparing various surgical techniques in the management of UUT‐TCC. The review additionally evaluates and critically appraises the quality of evidence available, which currently informs practice. Surgical management of upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma (UUT‐TCC) has significantly changed over the past two decades. Data for several new surgical techniques, including nephron‐sparing surgery (NSS), is emerging. The study systematically reviewed the literature comparing (randomised and observational studies) surgical and oncological outcomes for various surgical techniques MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, AMED, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus, Biosis, TRIP, Biomed Central, Dissertation Abstracts, ISI proceedings, and PubMed were searched to identify suitable studies. Data were extracted from each identified paper independently by two reviewers (B.R. and B.S.) and cross checked by a senior member of the team. The data analysis was performed using the Cochrane software Review manager version 5. Comparable data from each study was combined in a meta‐analysis where possible. For dichotomous data, odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated based on the fixed‐effects model and according to an intention‐to‐treat analysis. If the data available were deemed not suitable for a meta‐analysis it was described in a narrative fashion. One randomised control trial (RCT) and 19 observational studies comparing open nephroureterectomy (ONU) and laparoscopic NU (LNU) were identified. The RCT reported the LNU group to have statistically significantly less blood loss (104 vs 430 mL, P < 0.001) and mean time to discharge (2.30 vs 3.65 days, P < 0.001) than the ONU group. At a median...

No abstract

No abstract

Large renal stones (>2 cm) are managed with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), which has a good stone-free rate (SFR) but a relatively high incidence of complications graded Clavien ≥ 3. We wanted to review the literature for the use of ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation (URSL) for the management of these stones. A systematic review was done from 1990 to April 2014 for all English language articles reporting on a minimum of 10 patients for stones >2 cm in size (done by 2 reviewers independently) in accordance with the PRISMA and Cochrane review guidelines. A total of 379 articles were identified and after screening for the titles (54) and abstracts (29), 12 papers (651 patients) were included. The male to female ratio was 356:232 with a mean age of 54 years (range 16-86 years). With a mean stone size of 2.7 cm (2-3.15 cm) and the mean operating time of 96 min (28-238 min); the SFR was 91 % (1.45 procedures/patient). The overall number of complications was 58 (8.6 %) of which 26 (4.5 %) were complications classed Clavien ≥ 3 (haematuria with subcapsular haematoma/clot retention-7; ureteral perforation-7; steinstrasse-5; sepsis/pyelonephritis-5; prostatitis-1; cerebrovascular accident-1). Ureterorenoscopy for large renal stones in the modern era has good SFR with a small risk of major complications.

ObjectiveTo compare and evaluate the safety and efficacy of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and simple prostatectomy for large prostate burdens, as discussion and debate continue about the optimal surgical intervention for this common pathology.Materials and methodsA systematic search was conducted for studies comparing HoLEP with simple prostatectomy [open (OP), robot-assisted, laparoscopic] using a sensitive strategy and in accordance with Cochrane collaboration guidelines. Primary parameters of interest were objective measurements including maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and post-void residual urine volume (PVR), and subjective outcomes including International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes of interest included volume of tissue retrieved, catheterisation time, hospital stay, blood loss and serum sodium decrease. Data on baseline characteristics and complications were also collected. Where possible, comparable data were combined and meta-analysis was conducted.ResultsIn all, 310 articles were identified and after screening abstracts (114) and full manuscripts (14), three randomised studies (263 patients) were included, which met our pre-defined inclusion criteria. All these compared HoLEP with OP. The mean transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) volume was 113.9 mL in the HoLEP group and 119.4 mL in the OP group. There was no statistically significant difference in Qmax, PVR, IPSS and QoL at 12 and 24 months between the two interventions. OP was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (P = 0.01) and greater tissue retrieved (P < 0.001). However, with HoLEP there was significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001), patients had a shorter hospital stay (P = 0.03), and were catheterised for significantly fewer hours (P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the total number of complications recorded amongst HoLEP and OP (P = 0.80).ConclusionThe results of the meta-analysis have shown that HoLEP and OP possess similar overall efficacy profiles for both objective and subjective disease status outcome measures. This review shows these improvements persist to at least the 24 month follow-up point. Further randomised studies are warranted to fully determine the optimal surgical intervention for large prostate burdens.