ERAS did not increase 30-day complications compared with CRAS after RC. ERAS may be better than CRAS in terms of bowel movement, tolerance of fluid and regular diet, and ambulation.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the overall efficacy and safety of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EP) vs open prostatectomy (OP) for large benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).MethodsWe conducted an electronic search of PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to detect all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EP with OP. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.ResultsSeven RCTs (735 patients) were included. At the 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up, there were no significant differences in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), quality of life (QoL) score and post-void residual urine volume (PVR) between EP and OP. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) was higher with EP (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21 to 1.78, p=0.01) at the 12-month follow-up. The catheterization time (WMD: 3.80 d, 95%CI: -5.11 to -2.48, P<0.00001) and hospital stay (WMD: 4.93 d, 95%CI: -5.96 to -3.89, P<0.00001) were shorter with EP. The duration of operation was longer for EP compared with OP (WMD: 16.21 min, 95%CI: 3.72 to 28.70, P=0.01). The resected tissue weight (WMD: -9.63 g, 95%CI: -14.46 to -4.81, P<0.0001) and decrease in hemoglobin (WMD: -1.14 g/dL, 95%CI: -1.81 to -0.47, P=0.0008) were less with EP. EP was associated with fewer blood transfusions (risk ratio: 0.22, 95%CI: 0.10 to 0.47, P=0.0001). There were no significant differences between EP and OP when comparing other complications.ConclusionsAlthough only a limited number of RCTs with relatively limited follow-up are available, EP is shown to have a similar postoperative profile and comparable safety to OP. By contrast, EP may have a more desirable perioperative profile. EP appears to be an effective and safe minimally invasive option for treating large prostates that requires only brief convalescence.
Oncolytic virotherapy is a novel and emerging treatment modality that uses replication-competent viruses to destroy cancer cells. Although diverse cancer cell types are sensitive to oncolytic viruses, one of the major challenges of oncolytic virotherapy is that the sensitivity to oncolysis ranges among different cancer cell types. Furthermore, the underlying mechanism of action is not fully understood. Here, we report that activation of cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) signaling significantly sensitizes refractory cancer cells to alphavirus M1 in vitro, in vivo, and ex vivo. We find that activation of the cAMP signaling pathway inhibits M1-induced expression of antiviral factors in refractory cancer cells, leading to prolonged and severe endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, and cell apoptosis. We also demonstrate that M1-mediated oncolysis, which is enhanced by cAMP signaling, involves the factor, exchange protein directly activated by cAMP 1 (Epac1), but not the classical cAMP-dependent protein kinase A (PKA). Taken together, cAMP/Epac1 signaling pathway activation inhibits antiviral factors and improves responsiveness of refractory cancer cells to M1-mediated virotherapy.
PURPOSE:To compare the curative effects of ureteroscopic lithotripsy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for unilateral upper ureteral stones, and to explore optimal surgical indications and skills. METHODS: Fifty cases of unilateral upper ureteral stones were randomly divided into two groups: one group underwent ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy under epidural or lumbar anesthesia (n=25), and another group underwent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy under general anesthesia (n=25). Double-J stent was routinely indwelled in both groups. Operating time, postoperative hospitalization time, stone clearance rate and perioperative complications were compared. RESULTS: Operation was successfully performed in all 50 cases, and no open surgery was converted in any case. In the ureteroscopy and laparoscopy groups, the mean operating time was 49.0±10.7 min and 41.8±8.0 min (t=2.68, P=0.00999), respectively, their hospitalization time was 2.8±1.3 days vs. 2.9±0.8 days (t =-0.40, P=0.69413), and stone clearance rate was 88.0% (22/25) vs. 100% (25/25). Stone moved to the renal pelvis in three cases in the ureteroscopy group, and residual stones were removed by extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL). All patients were followed up for more than three months, and no serious complications such as ureterostenosis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy has a higher stone clearance rate and shorter operation time compared with ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy is one safe and effective treatment on unilateral upper ureteral stones. Key words: Ureteral Calculi. Ureteroscopy. Lithotripsy. Laparoscopy. RESUMO OBJETIVO:Comparar os efeitos curativos da litotripsia ureteroscópica e a ureterolitotomia laparoscópica para cálculos unilaterais altos e pesquisar as indicações e resultados. MÉTODOS: Cinquenta casos de cálculos unilaterais altos foram distribuídos aleatoriamente em dois grupos: um grupo submetido a litotripsia ureteroscópica com laser holmium sob anestesia epidural ou lombar (n=25) e outro grupo submetido a ureterolitotomia laparoscópica sob anestesia geral (n=25). Duplo-J stent foi rotineiramente instalado em ambos os grupos. Comparou-se o tempo operatório, tempo de hospitalização pós-operatória, nível de desaparecimento dos cálculos e complicações pós-operatórias. RESULTADOS: Atos operatórios nos 50 casos sem ocorrências e nenhum ato convertido. Nos grupos por ureteroscopia e laparoscopia, o tempo operatório médio foi 49,0±10,7 minutos e 41,8±8,0 minutos (t=2,68, P=0,00999) respectivamente, tempo de hospitalização foi 2,8±1,3 dias vs. 2,9±0,8 dias (t=0,40, P=0,69413) e o nível de desaparecimento dos cálculos foi 88.0% (22/25) vs. 100% (25/25). Cálculo deslocado para pelve renal em três casos no grupo ureteroscópico e cálculos residuais foram removidos por litotripsia por onda de choque extracorpóreo (ESWL). Todos pacientes foram seguidos por mais de três meses e não ocorreram complicações sérias como estenoses ureterais. CONCLUSÕES: A ureterolitotomia laparoscópica teve maio...
Fusion of the prostate-specific and androgen-regulated transmembrane-serine protease gene (TMPRSS2) with the erythroblast transformation-specific (ETS) family members is the most common genetic alteration in prostate cancer. However, the biological and clinical role of TMPRSS2-ETS fusions in prostate cancer, especially in problematic prostate needle core biopsies, has not been rigorously evaluated. We randomly collected 85 specimens including 50 archival prostate cancer tissue blocks, 15 normal prostate specimens, and 20 benign prostatic hyperplasia specimens for TMPRSS2-ETS fusion analyses. Moreover, the fusion status in an additional 20 patients with initial negative biopsies who progressed to biopsy-positive prostate cancer at subsequent follow-ups was also characterized. Fluorescently labeled probes specific for ERG-related rearrangements involving the TMPRSS2-ERG fusion as well as TMPRSS2-ETV1 and TMPRSS2-ETV4 were used to assess samples for gene rearrangements indicative of malignancy under a design of sequential trial. Rearrangements involving TMPRSS2-ETS fusions were detected in 90.0% of the 50 postoperative prostate cancer samples. The positive rate for the rearrangements in the initial prostate cancer-negative biopsies of 20 patients who eventually progressed to prostate cancer was 60.0% (12/20). Our preliminary study demonstrates that the clinical utility of TMPRSS2-ETS fusion detection as a biomarker and ancillary diagnostic tool for the early diagnosis of prostate cancer is promising, given this approach shows significant high sensitivity and specificity in detection.
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.