The epidemiological impact of Acinetobacter baumannii nosocomial infections in a Sicilian intensive care unit (ICU) was investigated to determine the Acinetobacter-specific infection rates, to estimate the preventable proportion of Acinetobacter infections, i.e., those resulting from cross-transmission, and to investigate the molecular epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in Acinetobacter. The impact of Acinetobacter nosocomial infection in the ICU was determined to be 3.0 new cases per 100 admissions. Site-specific rates confirmed that ICU-acquired pneumonia was the most important infection type. The incidence rate, adjusted by the number of patient-days, was 3.3 infections/1000 patient-days. The estimated preventable proportion of A. baumannii nosocomial infections in the ICU was 66.7%. A class 1 integron, characterised by its gene cassette content, was present in all A. baumannii isolates of four different pulsed-field gel electrophoresis types, and was associated significantly with clones implicated in cross-transmission episodes. Furthermore, the same integron was detected in two genetically distinct isolates responsible for recurrent infection in the same patient, suggesting the occurrence of horizontal gene transfer in vivo. Even in an endemic setting with low infection rates, spread of A. baumannii was caused mainly by infection control shortcomings that require appropriate surveillance and control policies.
There is a relative paucity of recent literature regarding the endoscopic treatment of USD. Laser endopyelotomy and balloon dilation are associated with good outcomes in treatment-naïve patients with short (< 2 cm), non-ischemic, benign ureteral strictures with a functional renal unit. If stricture recurs, repetitive dilation and laser endopyleotomy is not recommended, as success rates are low in this scenario. Patients with low-complexity ureteroenteric strictures and transplant strictures may benefit from endoscopic treatment options, although formal reconstruction offers higher rates of success. Formal ureteral reconstruction remains the gold-standard treatment for ureteral stricture disease as it is associated with higher rates of complete resolution. However, in carefully selected patients, endoscopic treatment modalities provide a low-cost, low-morbidity alternative.
ESWL use has come under scrutiny with a shift in focus to cost-effectiveness and healthcare outcomes. Fortunately, advances in lithotripter technology have spawned several generations of devices that strive to improve stone-free rates and decrease complications. Most of all, a focus on patient selection criteria has helped improve procedural success. Years of experience utilizing ESWL for stone treatment have helped urologists better optimize its use and minimize complications. Improvements in technique along with more stringent patient and stone selection have helped ESWL remain a mainstay in the treatment of stone disease.
What ' s known on the subject? and What does the study add? Pathological stage, lymph node metastasis and tumour grade have been established as prognostic factors for upper-tract urothelial carcinoma, but there are few studies to date assessing location within the ureter as a prognostic factor. There are also few studies comparing surgical approaches to radical nephroureterectomy (NU), partial ureterectomy and endoscopic resection (ENDO) with regard to oncological outcomes.This study did not fi nd any prognostic signifi cance for tumour location or surgical approach with regard to outcomes in patients with ureteric tumours. Although NU is the standard treatment for invasive ureteric tumours, partial ureterectomy and ENDO can safely be performed in selected patients. Despite the risk of a shorter time to recurrence, ENDO can be recommended in low grade, non-invasive ureteric tumours but only with close, thorough surveillance practices.
OBJECTIVE• To assess the impact of tumour location within the ureter and the impact of surgical approach on recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specifi c survival (CSS) with regard to ureteric tumours.
PATIENTS AND METHODS• Data were retrospectively reviewed from 60 patients with isolated primary ureteric tumours, treated at a single tertiary referral centre.• Patients were treated with radical nephroureterectomy (NU, n = 33), partial ureterectomy ( n = 17) or endoscopic resection (ENDO, n = 10).• Kaplan -Meier curves were used for the analysis of RFS and CSS after surgery, stratifi ed by tumour location and surgical approach.
RESULTS• With a median follow-up of 29 months, tumour location was not associated with disease recurrence ( P = 0.423).• The ENDO group had shorter time to disease recurrence.• There were no signifi cant differences in the probability of CSS with regard to either tumour location or surgical approach ( P = 0.523 and P = 0.904, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS• Tumour location or surgical approach were not signifi cant predictors of oncological outcomes in patients with ureteric tumours.• Although NU is standard treatment for invasive ureteric tumours, partial ureterectomy and ENDO can safely be performed in selected patients. Despite the risk of a shorter time to recurrence, ENDO can be recommended in low grade, non-invasive ureteric tumours.• All urothelium-preserving approaches require thorough surveillance.
KEYWORDSureteric tumour , tumour location , surgical approach , recurrence-free survival , cancer-specifi c survival Study Type -Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4
In our underserved patient population, AA patients were half as likely to submit a 24-hour urine collection than Caucasian patients, whereas patients with a positive family history of stones were more than twice as likely to submit than patients with no family history.
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.