No abstract

Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of ultraslow full‐power versus slow rate, power‐ramping shock wave lithotripsy in the management of stones with a high attenuation value. Methods This was a randomized comparative study enrolling patients with single high attenuation value (≥1000 Hounsfield unit) stones (≤3 cm) between September 2015 and May 2018. Patients with skin‐to‐stone distance >11 cm or body mass index >30 kg/m2 were excluded. Electrohydraulic shock wave lithotripsy was carried out at rate of 30 shock waves/min for group A versus 60 shock waves/min for group B. In group A, power ramping was from 6 to 18 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min, followed by ramping 18–22 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min. This full power (22 kV) was maintained until the end of the session. In group B, power ramping was carried out with an increase of 4 kV each 500 shock waves, then maintained on 22 kV in the last 1000–1500 shock waves. Follow up was carried out up to 3 months after the last session. Perioperative data were compared, including the stone free rate (as a primary outcome) and complications (secondary outcome). Predicting factors for success were analyzed using logistic regression. Results A total of 100 patients in group A and 96 patients in group B were included. The stone‐free rate was significantly higher in group A (76% vs 38.5%; P < 0.001). Both groups were comparable in complication rates (20% vs 19.8%; P = 0.971). The stone‐free rate remained significantly higher in group A in logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 24.011, 95% confidence interval 8.29–69.54; P < 0.001). Conclusions Ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy for high attenuation value stones is associated with an improved stone‐free rate without affecting safety. Further validation studies are required using other shock wave lithotripsy machines.

Background: A mild increase in testicular and epididymal temperatures in men, bulls and rams (pendulous scrotum) inhibits spermatogenesis and increases the percentage of sperm with an abnormal morphology.However, the stages of spermatogenesis that are most sensitive to a mild increase in testicular temperature in men are unknown. The aim of the present study was to explore the effects of a mild induced increase in testicular and epididymal temperature (i.e., testicular temperature maintained below the core body temperature) on sperm morphology in humans depending on the physiological time of spermatogenesis and epididymal transit.Methods: Five healthy volunteers were enrolled in an experimental study in which testicular and epididymal temperatures were increased by maintaining the testes in a supra-scrotal position with a specially designed underwear worn 15±1 h a day for 120 consecutive days. Semen collection was scheduled on specific days depending on spermatogenic stages and epididymal transit.Results: Sperm morphology and the multiple anomalies index (MAI) were analysed before, during and after heating. This mild induced increase in testicular and epididymal temperatures resulted in a significant rise in the percentage of morphologically abnormal spermatozoa on day 34 of heating, which remained elevated throughout the heating period and persisted until 45 days after cessation of heating. The MAI was significantly increased on day 20 throughout the heating period and persisted 45 days after cessation of heating. An increase in the percentage of anomalies in the sperm head, acrosome or tail occurred on days 34 and/or 45 of heating. Abnormal sperm morphology and MAI reverted to control values 73 days after cessation of heating.Conclusions: A mild sustained increase in testicular and epididymal temperature in man leads morphological abnormalities in spermatozoa mainly due to an impairment of spermiogenesis and meiosis.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) was identified as a pandemic in March 2020 by the World Health Organization. The virus spreads primarily through saliva droplets or nasal discharges, in addition to coughing or sneezing from an infected person. The most common symptom at the onset of illness is fever, which may appear within 2–14 days after exposure. The high fever (above 38 °C) can persist from one to 4 days. The febrile illness usually has a variable negative impact on sperm characteristics such as sperm output, motility, morphology, and DNA fragmentation. These defects proliferated due to an increase in testicular temperature, and disturbance in the thermoregulatory systems that are responsible for the testicular heat loss. Coronavirus studies suggest that fever from SARS-CoV-2 virus infection induces a reversible negative effect on the sperm parameters until one cycle (74 days) of spermatogenesis. We believe that SARS-CoV-2 can have long-term adverse effects on testicles via immune or inflammatory reactions after the patient has fully recovered. This evidence could be added to the list of the long-term post-COVID-19 syndromes. Long-term follow-up and evaluation of the sperm parameters are necessary for all recovered male patients, especially the young ones.

Solifenacin treatment showed significant improvement in almost all domains of stent-related symptoms than trospium. In terms of safety and tolerance, both drugs were comparable. Future studies should be designed to address the impact of combined drugs and lower doses in the management of DJ stent-related symptoms.

Post-Acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is considered to be one of the least understood post-infectious syndromes. We report a case of a 21-year-old female who had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and presented with a right atrioventricular thrombus associated with pulmonary embolism and thrombocytopenia. At the time of admission, she was not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, and her serological tests for IgG and IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were positive. The size of the thrombus measured approximately 6 × 8 × 4 cm, which also led to tricuspid valve insufficiency due to mechanical dilatation of the valve’s ring. The right atrioventricular thrombus also extended up to the inferior vena cava, leading to mild congestive hepatomegaly. Moreover, during thrombectomy, the mass of the thrombus was attached to the interseptal right atrial wall. The histopathological assessment of the core mass revealed that it was a right atrial myxoma hidden inside that large thrombus. We suspect that the formation and propagation of the thrombus to that size occurs as a part of Post-Acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS). This study reviews and discusses coronavirus disease 2019-relate to thrombus formation inside cardiac chambers in case of a cardiac tumor, like myxoma in the setting of post-acute phase COVID-19 syndrome.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy protocol in the management of high attenuation value upper ureteric stones compared with slow‐rate, power‐ramping shock wave lithotripsy.MethodsThis was a randomized trial enrolling patients with a single high attenuation value (≥1000 HU) upper ureteric stones between January 2019 and July 2019. Ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy (54 patients) was applied at a rate of 30 shock waves/min with power ramping from 6 to 18 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min, followed by ramping 18–22 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min. Then, full power (22 kV) was maintained until the end of the session. Slow‐rate, power‐ramping shock wave lithotripsy (47 patients) was applied at a rate of 60 shock waves/min with power ramping from 6 to 10 kV during the first 500 shock waves, then from 11 to 22 kV during the next 1000 shock waves, then maintained on 22 kV in the last 1500 shock waves. Up to three sessions were carried out with a follow up 3 months after the last session. The primary outcome was the stone‐free rate. Perioperative data of the two protocols were compared.ResultsThere was no significant difference in preoperative data. The stone‐free rate was significantly higher in ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy after single (92.6% vs 23.4%) and multiple (96.3% vs 63.8%) sessions. Most complications were mild, with no significant difference between both groups (9.3% vs 12.8%; P = 0.573). Logistic regression analysis identified ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy protocol as the only significant independent factor for the stone‐free rate (odds ratio 12.589, P = 0.025).ConclusionUltraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy for high attenuation value upper ureteric stones is associated with a significantly higher stone‐free rate, and with mild complications that are comparable to those of standard shock wave lithotripsy.