Introduction:Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is the main tool for early detection, risk stratification and monitoring of prostate cancer (PCa). However, there are controversies about the use of PSA as a population screening test because of the high potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment associated. The net benefit of screening is unclear and according to the available recommendations, it should be offered to well-informed men with an adequate health status and a life-expectancy of at least 10 years or to men at elevated risk of having PCa. In addition, the factors that influence test results are unclear, as is impact of false positive or negative results on patient health.Our objective is to assess the clinical and analytical factors associated with the presence of false positive and false negative results and the diagnostic/therapeutic process followed by these patients.Methods and analysis:A prospective observational cohort study will be carried out. We will include a cohort of patients with a positive PSA result (1.081 patients) and a sample of patients with negative results (572 patients); both will be followed for 2 years by reviewing medical records to assess the variables associated with these results, as well as characteristics of patient management after a positive PSA value. We will include those patients with a PSA determination from 2 hospitals in the Valencian Community. Patients who have been previously diagnosed with prostate cancer or who are being followed for previous high PSA values will be excluded.Discussion:The study will estimate the frequency of false positive and false negative PSA results in routine clinical practice, and allow us to quantify the potential harm caused.Study registration:Clinicaltrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/): NCT03978299, June 7, 2019.
Background
Double J ureteral stents are widely used on urological patients to provide drainage of the upper urinary tract. Unfourtunately, ureteral stents are not free from complications, as bacterial colonization and require a second procedure for removal. The purpose of the current comparative experimental study is to evaluate a new heparin-coated biodegradable antireflux ureteral stent (BraidStent®-H) to prevent urinary bacterial colonization.
Methods
A total of 24 female pigs were underwent determination of bacteriuria and nephrosonographic, endoscopic and contrast fluoroscopy assessment of the urinary tract. Afterward, were randomly assigned animals to Group-I, in which a 5Fr double-pigtail ureteral stent was placed for 6 weeks, or Group-II, in which a BraidStent®-H was placed. Follow-up assessments were performed at 1, 3, 6, 8, 12 weeks. The final follow-up includes the above methods and an exhaustive pathological study of the urinary tract was accomplished after 20 weeks.
Results
Bacteriuria findings in the first 48 h were significant between groups at 6 h and 12 h. Asymptomatic bacteriuria does not reach 100% of the animals in Group-II until 48 h versus Group-I where it appears at 6 h. The weekly bacteriuria mean rate was 27.7% and 44.4% in Group I and II respectively, without statistical significance. In Group II there were no animals with vesicoureteral reflux, with statistical significance at 3 and 6 weeks with Group-I. The 91.2% of stents in Group-II were degraded between 3 and 6 weeks, without obstructive fragments. Distal ureteral peristalsis was maintained in 66.6–75% in Group-II at 1–6 weeks.
Conclusions
The heparin coating of BraidStent® allows an early decrease of bacterial colonization, but its effectiveness is low at the long term. Heparin coating did not affect scheduled degradation rate or size of stents fragments. BraidStent®-H avoids the side effects associated with current ureteral stents, thus should cause less discomfort to patients.
m-URS is an effective, safe, and reproducible technique that minimizes surgical aggression to the ureteral anatomy. Satisfactory and comparable results to "conventional" ureteroscopy were obtained in the treatment of distal ureteral stones in women, although clinical trials are needed. The reduction of the ureteral damage may reduce secondary procedures and increase the cost-effectiveness of the procedure.
Introducción: La prostatectomía radical retropúbica (PRR) es el patrón oro para el tratamiento quirúrgico del cáncer de próstata organoconfinado. Se están desarrollando técnicas quirúrgicas menos invasivas, como prostatectomía radical laparoscópica (PRL) y la prostatectomía radical asistida por robot (PRAR). El objetivo del estudio es comparar los
Background: Urinary stones disease is becoming more common not only in adults but also in children. Most cases are resolved with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, but miniaturization of endoscopes has increased the use of ureteroscopy in resolving ureteral stones, most notably in children.Case Presentation: This presentation focuses on two cases of microureteroscopy. In both cases, the presence of lithiasis in the pelvic ureter was suspected to be the cause of ureter hydronephrosis, and a microureteroscopy was performed for treatment purposes. MicroPerc set 4.85F sheath was used to explore the pelvic ureter, thus avoiding the need to dilate the ureteral meatus or having to use the safety guide. Patients did not require a postoperative stent and were discharged within 24 hours of the procedure.Conclusion: Use of microureteroscopy proved satisfactory in the two cases of children and it allows diagnosis and treatment of ureteral pathology in pediatric patients.
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy requires a longer learning curve than robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Operative time in RALP procedures was comparable to RRP cases. RALP showed benefits in terms of continence and intraoperative bleeding.
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.