Introduction: Medullary cystic kidney disease 2 (MCKD2) and familial juvenile hyperuricaemic nephropathy (FJHN) are both autosomal dominant renal diseases characterised by juvenile onset of hyperuricaemia, gout, and progressive renal failure. Clinical features of both conditions vary in presence and severity. Often definitive diagnosis is possible only after significant pathology has occurred. Genetic linkage studies have localised genes for both conditions to overlapping regions of chromosome 16p11-p13. These clinical and genetic findings suggest that these conditions may be allelic. Aim: To identify the gene and associated mutation(s) responsible for FJHN and MCKD2. Methods: Two large, multigenerational families segregating FJHN were studied by genetic linkage and haplotype analyses to sublocalise the chromosome 16p FJHN gene locus. To permit refinement of the candidate interval and localisation of candidate genes, an integrated physical and genetic map of the candidate region was developed. DNA sequencing of candidate genes was performed to detect mutations in subjects affected with FJHN (three unrelated families) and MCKD2 (one family). Results: We identified four novel uromodulin (UMOD) gene mutations that segregate with the disease phenotype in three families with FJHN and in one family with MCKD2. Conclusion: These data provide the first direct evidence that MCKD2 and FJHN arise from mutation of the UMOD gene and are allelic disorders. UMOD is a GPI anchored glycoprotein and the most abundant protein in normal urine. We postulate that mutation of UMOD disrupts the tertiary structure of UMOD and is responsible for the clinical changes of interstitial renal disease, polyuria, and hyperuricaemia found in MCKD2 and FJHN.

No abstract

Context Membranous urethral length (MUL) measured prior to radical prostatectomy (RP) has been identified as a factor that is associated with the recovery of continence following surgery. Objective To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies reporting the effect of MUL on the recovery of continence following RP. Evidence acquisition A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases up to September 2015 was performed. Thirteen studies comprising one randomized controlled trial and 12 cohort studies were selected for inclusion. Evidence synthesis Four studies (1738 patients) that reported hazard ratio results. Every extra millimeter (mm) of MUL was associated with a faster return to continence (hazard ratio: 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02–1.08, p < 0.001). Eleven studies (6993 patients) reported the OR (OR) for the return to continence at one or more postoperative time points. MUL had a significant positive effect on continence recovery at 3 mo (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.03–1.14, p = 0.004), 6 mo (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.09–1.15, p <0.0001). and 12 mo (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03–1.22, p = 0.006) following surgery. After adjusting for repeated measurements over time and studies with overlapping data, all OR data combined indicated that every extra millimeter of MUL was associated with significantly greater odds for return to continence (OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.05–1.15, p <0.001). Conclusions A greater preoperative MUL is significantly and positively associated with a return to continence in men following RP. Magnetic resonance imaging measurement of MUL is recommended prior to RP. Patient summary We examined the effect that the length of a section of the urethra (called the membranous urethra) had on the recovery of continence after radical prostatectomy surgery. Our results indicate that measuring the length of the membranous urethra via magnetic resonance imaging before surgery may be useful to predict a longer period of urinary incontinence after surgery, or to explain a delay in achieving continence after surgery.

The surgical options for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence continue to evolve; as such, this guideline and the associated algorithm aim to outline the currently available treatment techniques as well as the data associated with each treatment. Indeed, the Panel recognizes that this guideline will require continued literature review and updating as further knowledge regarding current and future options continues to grow.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: Urinary incontinence after prostate treatment (IPT) is one of the few urologic diseases that is iatrogenic, and, therefore, predictable and perhaps preventable. Evaluation of the incontinent patient, risk factors for IPT, the assessment of the patient prior to intervention, and a stepwise approach to management are covered in this guideline. Algorithms for patient evaluation, surgical management, and device failure are also provided. Materials and Methods: This guideline was developed using a systematic review from the Mayo Clinic Evidence Based Practice Center with additional supplementation by the authors. A research librarian conducted searches from 2000 to December 21 st , 2017 using Ovid, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews. Additional references through 12/31/2018 were identified. Results: This guideline was developed by a multi-disciplinary panel to inform clinicians on the proper assessment of patients with IPT and the safe and effective management of the condition in both surgical and non-surgical contexts. Statements guiding the clinician on proper management of device failure are also included. Conclusion:Most patients who undergo radical prostatectomy (RP), and some patients who undergo radiation therapy (RT) or surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), will experience IPT. Although non-surgical options, such as pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFME), can hasten continence recovery, patients who remain incontinent at one-year post-procedure, or have severe incontinence at six months, may elect to undergo surgical treatment (e.g. artificial urinary sphincter). Prior to IPT surgery, the risks, benefits, alternatives, and additional likely procedures should be discussed with the patient.

Purpose We describe current trends in robotic and open radical prostatectomy in the United States after examining case logs for American Board of Urology certification. Materials and Methods American urologists submit case logs for initial board certification and recertification. We analyzed logs from 2004 to 2010 for trends and used logistic regression to assess the impact of urologist age on robotic radical prostatectomy use. Results A total of 4,709 urologists submitted case logs for certification between 2004 and 2010. Of these logs 3,374 included 1 or more radical prostatectomy cases. Of the urologists 2,413 (72%) reported performing open radical prostatectomy only while 961 (28%) reported 1 or more robotic radical prostatectomies and 308 (9%) reported robotic radical prostatectomy only. During this 7-year period we observed a large increase in the number of urologists who performed robotic radical prostatectomy and a smaller corresponding decrease in those who performed open radical prostatectomy. Only 8% of patients were treated with robotic radical prostatectomy by urologists who were certified in 2004 while 67% underwent that procedure in 2010. Median age of urologists who exclusively performed open radical prostatectomy was 43 years (IQR 38–51) vs 41 (IQR 35–46) for those who performed only robotic radical prostatectomy. Conclusions While the rate was not as high as the greater than 85% industry estimate, 67% of radical prostatectomies were done robotically among urologists who underwent board certification or recertification in 2010. Total radical prostatectomy volume almost doubled during the study period. These data provide nonindustry based estimates of current radical prostatectomy practice patterns and further our understanding of the evolving surgical treatment of prostate cancer.