Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy provides outcomes as good as those of abdominal sacrocolpopexy for anatomical correction but not for anterior pelvic organ prolapse.
ObjectivesTo compare the clinical effectiveness of the intravesical administration of combined hyaluronic acid and chondroitin sulfate (HA+CS) versus current standard management in adult women with recurrent urinary tract infections (RUTIs).SettingA European Union-based multicentre, retrospective nested case–control study.Participants276 adult women treated for RUTIs starting from 2009 to 2013.InterventionsPatients treated with either intravesical administration of HA+CS or standard of care (antimicrobial/immunoactive prophylaxis/probiotics/cranberry).Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was occurrence of bacteriologically confirmed recurrence within 12 months. Secondary outcomes were time to recurrence, total number of recurrences, health-related quality of life and healthcare resource consumption. Crude and adjusted results for unbalanced characteristics are presented.Results181 patients treated with HA+CS and 95 patients treated with standard of care from 7 centres were included. The crude and adjusted ORs (95% CI) for the primary end point were 0.77 (0.46 to 1.28) and 0.51 (0.27 to 0.96), respectively. However, no evidence of improvement in terms of total number of recurrences (incidence rate ratio (95% CI), 0.99 (0.69 to 1.43)) or time to first recurrence was seen (HR (95% CI), 0.99 (0.61 to 1.61)). The benefit of intravesical HA+CS therapy improves when the number of instillations is ≥5.ConclusionsOur results show that bladder instillations of combined HA+CS reduce the risk of bacteriologically confirmed recurrences compared with the current standard management of RUTIs. Total incidence rates and hazard rates were instead non-significantly different between the 2 groups after adjusting for unbalanced factors. In contrast to what happens with antibiotic prophylaxis, the effectiveness of the HA+CS reinstatement therapy improves over time.Trial registration numberNCT02016118.
In performing partial nephrectomy (PN), surgeons focus on complete removal of tumor, preservation of renal function, the absence of major perioperative complications, expressed by the formula margin, ischemia and complication (MIC). The aim of current study was to perform a single-institution comparison of clampless open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN) or robot-assisted (RAPN) PN as well as to evaluate pre-, intra- and postoperative factors that may influence achievement of ideal MIC. All consecutive clampless OPN, LPN or RAPN performed by experienced surgeons between 2006 and 2015 were included in the analysis. MIC was defined as negative surgical margin plus zero-ischemia plus absence of any grade ≥3 complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to predict the MIC. Odds ratios with 95 % confidence intervals were calculated. 80 patients underwent OPN, 66 LPN and 31 RAPN, and both groups had similar characteristics. The MIC rate was 67.5, 86.3 and 83.3 % in the OPN, LPN and RAPN groups, respectively (p = 0.016). At logistic regression analysis, surgical approach (p = 0.03) and operative time (p = 0.008) were independent predictors of the MIC rate. When stratified according to the surgical approach, preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical classification (PADUA) score, LPN, RAPN and operative time were independent predictors of MIC rate (p = 0.0488, p = 0.0494, p = 0.0479 and p = 0.0108, respectively). Clampless LPN and RAPN have an efficacy and safety profile that is on par with OPN, offering the additional benefits of a reduced operative time, blood loss, on demand ischemia and rate of high-grade complications.
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.