RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Overall incidence of stones in kidney transplant recipients is 1%. En-bloc kidney transplant is a rare anatomical condition in which kidney stones treatment can be extremely difficult to treat. As far as we know, no cases of staghorn calculi in en-bloc kidney transplant have been published so far. CASE PRESENTATION: A 27-year-old woman presented to the Emergency Department because of asthenia, adynamia and weight loss associated with lower urinary tract symptoms and subfebrile temperature. Ten years before, she had undergone an en-bloc kidney transplant because of end-stage renal disease secondary to perinatal asphyxia syndrome. One kidney was implanted capo-volta in the right iliac fossa and the other one in the right flank. NCCT scan showed incomplete staghorn calculi in the iliac fossa transplanted kidney. Besides, severe dilation of the native and the right flank transplanted kidney, due to two ureteral stones of 6 and 7 mm impacted in the uretero-ureteral anastomosis, was found. After hospital admission and under ceftriaxone prophylaxis, an attempt to perform primary RIRS following our COVID protocol was carried out. Nevertheless, we ended up placing a JJ stent because once the guidewire passed through the ureteral stones, purulent material came out from the ureteral orifice. She stayed 9 days in-hospital for management of postobstructive polyuria and was discharged with oral antibiotics. Three weeks afterward, we removed the stent and performed flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy of the ureteral stones. In the same procedure, we performed Mini-ECIRS (21 French) previous ultrasound-guided upper pole puncture. Postoperative NCCT scan showed neither residual fragments nor operative complications. CONCLUSION: This is the first clinical case reporting Mini-ECIRS in a patient with an en-bloc kidney transplant. This endourological approach seems to be a feasible, safe and effective approach to treat stones in this anatomically challenging condition.

RESUMEN

OBJETIVO: El objetivo de esta revisión es describir las distintas alternativas terapéuticas en la obstrucción ureteral maligna -OUM- y analizar sus resultados a corto y largo plazo. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda en castellano e inglés a través de las bases de datos PubMed y Google Scholar. Se examinaron las revisiones más relevantes, los artículos originales y las respectivas citas de los mismos. La última búsqueda se realizó en abril de 2016. RESULTADOS: El catéter doble J polimérico es la derivación interna más costo-efectiva y accesible, pero es también la de más corta duración. Su tasa de fracaso temprano va de 0% a 35% y su tasa de fracaso tardío, de 14% a 49%. El tiempo medio al fracaso tardío es de 3 a 12 meses. La nefrostomía es la derivación más segura por su baja tasa de fracaso, aunque presenta complicaciones frecuentes como la migración del catéter, y puede disminuir la calidad de vida. De los catéteres doble J metálicos, el único con adecuado sustento bibliográfico en OUM es el Resonance®. Su tasa de fracaso temprano oscila entre 0% y 15%, y el fracaso tardío, entre 7% y 41%, con un tiempo promedio al fracaso tardío de 2,6 a 13 meses. Con respecto a los stents metálicos, los mejores resultados pertenecen al Memokath 051®, con un fracaso temprano de 0% a 5%, fracaso tardío de 19% a 49% y un tiempo promedio al fracaso tardío de 7 a 11 meses. En los casos de fracaso de catéteres doble J poliméricos, los pacientes se vieron beneficiados con la colocación de un doble J en tándem, un doble J metálico o un stent, evitando la necesidad de una nefrostomía. En todos los casos el nivel de evidencia fue bajo. CONCLUSIONES: Los resultados sobre el manejo de la OUM son heterogéneos y con bajo nivel de evidencia. Los factores que influencian los resultados incluyen: características del catéter o stent utilizado, curso y pronóstico de la condición obstructiva y posiblemente preferencias por parte del paciente y del urólogo. Los catéteres doble J poliméricos parecen tener mayores tasas de fracaso tardío y temprano. Sin embargo, la diferencia con los catéteres doble J metálicos y los stents no es claramente evidente. Son necesarios trabajos prospectivos, multicéntricos y multidisciplinarios, para dilucidar la conveniencia y adecuada selección de uno u otro medio de derivación no quirúrgica)

OBJECTIVE: To describe the different therapeutic alternatives in malignant ureteral obstruction (MUO), and to analyze short and long-term results. METHODS: We conducted a bibliographic search about MUO in Spanish and English languages in PubMed and Google Scholar. We examined the most relevant reviews, original manuscripts and their respective citations. Last search was on April 2016. RESULTS: Polymeric double J stent is the cheapest and most accessible internal urinary diversion, but has also the shortest duration. Early and late failure rates were 0-35% and 14-49% respectively. Mean time to late failure was 3-12 months. Percutaneous nephrostomy is the safest alternative in terms of failure rates, though it has frequent complications such as tube dislodgement, and may have a negative effect on quality of life. The only metallic double J stent with enough bibliographic background is the Resonance® stent. Early failure was 0-15% and late failure 4-41%, with a mean time to late failure of 2.6-13 months. Regarding metallic stents, Memokath 051® has obtained the best results, with 0-5% early failure rates, 19-49% late failures and mean time to late failure of 7-11 months. In patients with polymeric double J stent failure, patients benefited from tandem double J stents, metallic double J catheters or metallic stents, avoiding the need of a percutaneous nephrostomy. The evidence level was low in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Results in MUO are very heterogeneous and have a low evidence level. Factors that influence results include stent characteristics, status and prognosis of the obstructive condition and probably patient and physician’s preferences. Polymeric double J stents seem to have higher early and late failure rates than metallic double J catheters and metallic stents. Even though, the difference is not clearly evident. Prospective, multicenter, multidisciplinary trials are necessary to elucidate convenience and adequate selection of each type of stent

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the results of patients treated with Radical Prostatectomy (RP) and Brachytherapy for low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer and to determine the Biochemical Recurrence (BCR) risk according to the treatment performed. METHODS: The study included 129 patients treated with iodine-125 seeds Brachytherapy, 98 patients treated with Laparoscopic RP (LRP), and 61 patients treated with Robotic RP (RRP) at our institution between December 1999 and January 2010, who had a low-risk disease according to D'Amico criteria (PSA <10 ng/mL, Gleason < or = 6, cT1c-T2a), or an intermediate-risk disease (PSA = or >10 and < 20 ng/mL, Gleason = 7, cT2b), but with a tumor burden of up to 30%. Follow-up was conducted with PSA at 1, 3, and 6 months, and then every six months. As for Brachytherapy, annual digital rectal examinations were also performed. A PSA level increase of 2 ng/mL above the nadir in Brachytherapy (confirmed in 2 cases) and a PSA value greater than 0.2 ng/mL after RP were considered BCR. RESULTS: Overall mean follow-up was 60.5 months (R:1-152), with a mean time for BCR of 51.7 months (R:1-138). Estimated 5-year Biochemical Recurrence-free Survival (BCRFS) in patients with D'Amico low-risk was 85.7%, 77.2% and 90.7% (p 0.336), while for intermediate-risk it was 75.8%, 68.1% and 65.1% (p 0.114), for Brachytherapy, LRP and RRP respectively. In the univariate analysis, the Gleason score 7, a clinical stage T2b, and a D'Amico intermediate-risk were associated with an increased BCR risk, and treatment with Brachytherapy was associated with a decreased BCR risk, all these being statistically significant. In the multivariate analysis, only the Gleason score 7 was significant; treatment with LRP, RRP or Brachytherapy was not associated with a greater BCR risk. CONCLUSION: Brachytherapy and Laparoscopic or Robotic Radical Prostatectomy showed no difference in terms of Biochemical Recurrence risk in patients treated for low-risk or intermediate-risk tumors, with low tumor volume.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJETIVO: Analizar los resultados de pacientes tratados con prostatectomía radical (PR) y braquiterapia para cáncer localizado de próstata de riesgo bajo e intermedio y establecer el riesgo de recaída bioquímica (RB) según el tratamiento realizado. MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron 129 pacientes tratados con Braquiterapia con semillas de Iodo 125, 98 tratados con PR Laparoscópica (PRL) y 61 con PR Robótica (PRR), en nuestra institución desde diciembre de 1999 hasta enero de 2010, que presentaban una enfermedad de bajo riesgo según criterios de D'amico (PSA <10 ng/ml, Gleason < o = 6, cT1c-T2a), o un riesgo intermedio (PSA = o >10 y < 20 ng/ml, Gleason = 7, cT2b), pero con una carga tumoral de hasta un 30%. El seguimiento se realizó mediante PSA al mes, a los 3 meses, a los 6 meses, y luego semestralmente. También con tacto rectal anual en el caso de braquiterapia. Se consideró RB a la elevación del PSA en 2 ng/ml sobre el valor del nadir en la braquiterapia (confirmado en 2 oportunidades) y un valor de PSA mayor a 0,2 ng/ml luego de la PR. RESULTADOS: El seguimiento global medio fue de 60,5 meses (R:1-152), con un tiempo medio a la RB de 51,7 meses (R:1-138). La supervivencia estimada libre de recaída bioquímica a los 5 años en pacientes con riesgo bajo de D'amico fue 85,7%, 77,2% y 90,7% (p 0,336), mientras que para riesgo intermedio fue 75,8%, 68,1% y 65,1% (p 0,114), para braquiterapia, PRL y PRR respectivamente. En el análisis univariado el score de Gleason 7, un estadio clínico T2b, y un riesgo de D'amico intermedio se asociaron a un incremento del riesgo de RB y el tratamiento con Braquiterapia se asocio a una disminución del riesgo de RB, siendo todas estas estadísticamente significativas. En el análisis multivariado solo el score de Gleason 7 fue significativo; el tratamiento con PRL, PRR o Braquiterapia no se asoció con mayor riesgo de RB. CONCLUSIÓN: La braquiterapia y la prostatectomía radical laparoscópica o robótica, no mostraron diferencias en términos de riesgo de recaída bioquímica en pacientes tratados por tumores de bajo riesgo, o riesgo intermedio con bajo volumen tumoral

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the results of patients treated with Radical Prostatectomy (RP) and Brachytherapy for low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer and to determine the Biochemical Recurrence (BCR) risk according to the treatment performed. METHODS: The study included 129 patients treated with iodine-125 seeds Brachytherapy, 98 patients treated with Laparoscopic RP (LRP), and 61 patients treated with Robotic RP (RRP) at our institution between December 1999 and January 2010, who had a low-risk disease according to D'Amico criteria (PSA < or = 6, cT1c-T2a), or an intermediate-risk disease (PSA = or >10 and < 20 ng/mL, Gleason = 7, cT2b), but with a tumor burden of up to 30%. Follow-up was conducted with PSA at 1, 3, and 6 months, and then every six months. As for Brachytherapy, annual digital rectal examinations were also performed. A PSA level increase of 2 ng/mL above the nadir in Brachytherapy (confirmed in 2 cases) and a PSA value greater than 0.2 ng/mL after RP were considered BCR. RESULTS: Overall mean follow-up was 60.5 months (R:1-152), with a mean time for BCR of 51.7 months (R:1-138). Estimated 5-year Biochemical Recurrence-free Survival (BCRFS) in patients with D'Amico low-risk was 85.7%, 77.2% and 90.7% (p 0.336), while for intermediate-risk it was 75.8%, 68.1% and 65.1% (p 0.114), for Brachytherapy, LRP and RRP respectively. In the univariate analysis, the Gleason score 7, a clinical stage T2b, and a D'Amico intermediate-risk were associated with an increased BCR risk, and treatment with Brachytherapy was associated with a decreased BCR risk, all these being statistically significant. In the multivariate analysis, only the Gleason score 7 was significant; treatment with LRP, RRP or Brachytherapy was not associated with a greater BCR risk. CONCLUSION: Brachytherapy and Laparoscopic or Robotic Radical Prostatectomy showed no difference in terms of Biochemical Recurrence risk in patients treated for low-risk or intermediate-risk tumors, with low tumor volume

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To determine the oncological and functional results obtained after salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP) in patients with recurrence following radiotherapy (3 consecutive PSA rises after a nadir until the year 2006, then 2 ng/mL above nadir ) for prostate cancer (PC), and to analyze the impact of different pre-and postoperative variables on biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCR-free survival). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 29 cases treated with SRP, 23 cases of conventional technique and 6 cases assisted by the Da Vinci surgical system between August 2004 and March 2012 at the Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. There was an attempt to preserve neurovascular bundles in cT1c patients with low tumor volume, Gleason score 7 or less, and favorable surgical anatomy. The degrees of postoperative incontinence and erectile function were recorded. The overall survival, the disease-specific survival, and the BCR-free survival were assessed. The BCR-free survival was compared among groups in accordance with the pre-and post-operative variables. RESULTS. No complications,injury to nearby organs or blood transfusions were recorded. Of all the patients, 85.7% showed normal continence (no pads used). Eight patients (27.5%) preserved their potency with sildenafil. There were 6 positive margins for tumor extension, 44.8% of pT3a, and 10.3% pT3b. All patients are alive at present, and 58.6% with at least 1 year of follow-up have a PSA with recovery criteria (less than 0.02 ng/mL). The biochemical recurrence (BCR) was 41.3%, and the estimated 4-year BCR-free survival was 51.7%. Of the groups analyzed, the presence of a preoperative Gleason score ≥8 and the presence of positive surgical margins (PSMs) significantly influenced the BCR-free survival, both in the univariate as well as the multivariate analysis (p=0.02 and 0.017, respectively). CONCLUSIONS. SRP is a challenging and achievable surgery with an acceptable complication rate, and constitutes a chance to cure patients with biochemical recurrence following prostate radiotherapy. The presence of a preoperative Gleason score ≥8, and the presence of PSMs in the specimen increase the chances of a BCR after four years post-SRP.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJETIVO: Determinar los resultados oncológicos y funcionales obtenidos tras prostatectomía radical de rescate (PR-R) en pacientes recidivados post radioterapia (elevación del PSA en 3 oportunidades consecutivas hasta 2006, luego 2ng/ml sobre el nadir) por cáncer de próstata (CP), y analizar el impacto en la supervivencia libre de recaída bioquímica de diferentes variables pre y postoperatorias. MÉTODOS: Análisis retrospectivo de 29 casos tratados con PR-R, 23 técnica convencional y 6 asistidos por el sistema robótico da Vinci, entre agosto de 2004 y marzo de 2012 en el Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Se intento realizar conservación neurovascular en pacientes cT1c con bajo volumen tumoral, gleason 7 o menor y anatomía quirúrgica favorable. Se objetivó el grado de incontinencia y erección postoperatoria. Se evaluó la supervivencia global y especifica por enfermedad así como también la supervivencia libre de recaída bioquímica (SLRB). Se comparó la SLRB entre grupos de acuerdo a variables pre y postoperatorias. RESULTADOS: No se registraron complicaciones ni lesiones a órganos vecinos, ni transfusiones de sangre. El 85,7 % presenta continencia normal (no utiliza paño). Ocho pacientes (27,5%) conservan su potencia con sildenafil. Hubieron 6 márgenes positivos para extensión tumoral, 44,8% de pT3a y 10,3% pT3b. Todos los pacientes se encuentran vivos al momento y 58.6% con por lo menos 1 año de seguimiento presentan un PSA con criterio de curación (menor de 0,02ng/ml). La recaída bioquímica fue del 41,3% y la SLRB estimada a 4 años fue del 51,7%. De los grupos analizados, tanto la presencia de un score de gleason preoperatorio ≥ 8 y la presencia de márgenes quirúrgicos positivos (MQP) influyeron de manera significativa en la SLRB tanto en el análisis univariado como en el multivariado (p=0,02 y 0,017, respectivamente). CONCLUSIONES: La PR-R es una cirugía desafiante y realizable con un índice de complicaciones aceptable, siendo una oportunidad de curación en pacientes con recidiva bioquímica tras radioterapia de próstata. La presencia de un score de gleason preoperatorio ≥ 8 y la presencia de MQP en la pieza aumentan las posibilidades de tener una recaída bioquímica a los cuatro años post PR-R

OBJECTIVES: To determine the oncological and functional results obtained after salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP) in patients with recurrence following radiotherapy (3 consecutive PSA rises after a nadir until the year 2006, then 2 ng/mL above nadir) for prostate cancer (PC), and to analyze the impact of different pre- and postoperative variables on biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCR-free survival). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 29 cases treated with SRP, 23 cases of conventional technique and 6 cases assisted by the Da Vinci surgical system between August 2004 and March 2012 at the Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. There was an attempt to preserve neurovascular bundles in cT1c patients with low tumor volume, Gleason score 7 or less, and favorable surgical anatomy. The degrees of postoperative incontinence and erectile function were recorded. The overall survival, the disease-specific survival, and the BCR-free survival were assessed. The BCR-free survival was compared among groups in accordance with the pre- and post-operative variables. RESULTS. No complications, injury to nearby organs or blood transfusions were recorded. Of all the patients, 85.7% showed normal continence (no pads used). Eight patients (27.5%) preserved their potency with sildenafil. There were 6 positive margins for tumor extension, 44.8% of pT3a, and 10.3% pT3b. All patients are alive at present, and 58.6% with at least 1 year of follow-up have a PSA with recovery criteria (less than 0.02 ng/mL). The biochemical recurrence (BCR) was 41.3%, and the estimated 4-year BCR-free survival was 51.7%. Of the groups analyzed, the presence of a preoperative Gleason score ≥8 and the presence of positive surgical margins (PSMs) significantly influenced the BCR-free survival, both in the univariate as well as the multivariate analysis (p=0.02 and 0.017, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: SRP is a challenging and achievable surgery with an acceptable complication rate, and constitutes a chance to cure patients with biochemical recurrence following prostate radiotherapy. The presence of a preoperative Gleason score ≥8, and the presence of PSMs in the specimen increase the chances of a BCR after four years post-SRP

Asunto(s)