No abstract

No abstract

ObjectivesTo present a novel ureteric re-implantation technique for primary obstructed megaureter (POM) that ensures success in the short- and long-term, as conventional techniques are not ideal for megaureters especially in children, with ureteric stenosis and reflux being common complications after re-implantation.Patients and methodsBetween 2009 and 2012, 22 paediatric patients with POM were enrolled. We performed a new technique for re-implantation of these ureters to ensure minimal incidence of ureteric strictures and easy subsequent endoscopic access. We performed follow-up voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) at 6 months postoperatively.ResultsThe cohort comprised 14 boys and eight girls, with a median age of 22 months. Six patients underwent bilateral re-implantation. The mean (range) duration of indwelling ureteric catheterisation was 7.8 (4–14) days. There were no complications in the perioperative and postoperative periods. There was no reflux on follow-up VCUG in any of the patients. One patient developed Grade I reflux after 1 year and presented with a urinary tract infection. Diagnostic cystoscopy was performed in 13 patients showing that the nipple was directed similarly to the native ureteric orifice.ConclusionThe embedded-nipple technique for re-implantation of POM guarantees successful results and permits easy subsequent ureteroscopic access when needed.

Introduction: Urethral strictures (US) and bladder neck contracture (BNC) are common long-term complications of transurethral prostate surgery. We aimed to compare transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) regarding incidence of US or BNC and identify possible risk factors. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent TURP and HoLEP with followup data of at least one year in two separate institutions was performed. The incidence of postoperative US or BNC in both groups was compared. Bivariate and multivariate analysis of risk factors in both cohorts with US or BNC were performed. Results: The study included 208 patients: 101 and 107 patients in the TURP and HoLEP arms, respectively. The two groups were matched for age and prostate size. Eight (7.92%) and five (4.72%) patients in the TURP arm and HoLEP arm, respectively, developed US (p=0.3423), while two (1.87%) patients in the HoLEP arm had BNC (p=0.2634). Of the eight patients with the US in the TURP arm, six (9.8%) patients had bipolar TURP, while two (5%) patients had monopolar TURP. Multivariate analysis showed that larger prostate volume (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05, 1.41, p=0.0066) and longer operative time (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.76, 1.93, p=0.0015) were associated with risk of US/BNC. Conclusions: There is no significant difference between TURP and HoLEP regarding incidence of US or BNC, although there is a tendency towards a higher rate of US associated with bipolar TURP. Increased prostate volume and operative time are possible risk factors.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract