Naval Khurana

Management of vesicovaginal fistula: An experience of 52 cases with a rationalized algorithm for choosing the transvaginal or transabdominal approach

Purpose: We aim to present our experience for the repair of vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) with special reference to surgical approach. Materials and Methods: From January 1999 to June 2005, 52 VVF patients with mean age of 32 years underwent operative treatment. Fistulas were divided into two groups, simple and complex, depending on site, size, etiology and associated anomalies. Simple VVFs were approached through the vaginal route and complex VVFs via the transabdominal route. Patients were evaluated at two to three weeks initially, three-monthly twice and later depending on symptoms. Results: Thirty-two (61.5%) had simple fistulas and 20 (38.5%) complex fistulas. The most common etiology was obstetric trauma in 31 (59.6%) patients, while the second most common cause was post hysterectomy VVF. Thirty-two (61.5%) patients were managed by transvaginal route, of which 17 had supratrigonal and 15 trigonal fistulas. Twenty (38.5%) patients with complex fistulas were managed by abdominal route. The mean blood loss, postoperative pain and mean hospital stay were shorter in transvaginal repair. Eleven (21.2%) patients required ancillary procedures for various other associated anomalies at the time of fistula repair. Three patients failed repair giving a success rate of 94.2%. At a mean follow-up of three years 48 women were sexually active, of these 10 (19.2%) complained of mild to moderate dyspareunia. Conclusion: Most of the simple fistulas irrespective their locations are easily accessible transvaginally while in complex fistulas we recommend the transabdominal approach. Depending on the clinical context both the approaches achieved comparable success rates.

Does the type of steinstrasse predict the outcome of expectant therapy

OBJECTIVES: To determine the outcome of expectant therapy in steinstrasse according to its type. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A chart review was performed on patients who underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) between 1995 and June 2004. Demographic profile, stone size, site, characteristics of steinstrasse (type 1; multiple small fragments, type 2; lead fragment of 5 mm or more with small fragments proximal to it and type 3; multiple fragments of 5 mm or more) and mode of treatment used, were noted. Patients of steinstrasse, diagnosed on X-Ray KUB were kept on expectant treatment for 4 weeks. Patients with high grade fever and infected hydronephrosis were treated with percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) insertion. Non responders at 4 weeks, were treated with SWL and/or ureterorenoscopy (URS). RESULTS: 1000 patients of mean age 37.85 years, with urinary stones, received SWL (827 renal stones and 173 ureteric stones). Sixty patients (6%) developed steinstrasse. Mean stone size was 2.03 cm (0.6-4 cm). Type 1, 2 and 3 steinstrasse was present in 32 (53%), 20 (33%) and 8 (13%) patients, respectively. Conservative management was successful in 30 (50%) patients at 4 weeks. 3 patients who presented with infected hydronephrosis, required PCN. The remaining (27 patients) were subjected to repeat SWL. 24 of these 27 patients could be successfully treated with SWL, whereas the remaining 3 required URS. Of non- responders to conservative treatment i.e., 30 patients, 17 (56%) and 8 (26%) patients had type 2 and 3 steinstrasse respectively, whereas only 3 out of 30 (10%) responders had type 2 and none of the responders had type 3 steinstrasse, P value < 0.01. CONCLUSION: Type 2 and 3 steinstrasse have 90% (25 out of 28 failed) chance of not responding to the conservative treatment at 4 weeks. To avoid the risk of infected hydronephrosis (5%), active intervention should be done in patients with lead fragment of 5 mm or more (type 2 and 3 steinstrasse), as early as possible. SWL is successful in most of these patients and should be the primary modality of treatment.

Nephron sparing surgery: A single institution experience

Objective: To report our experience in managing various benign and malignant renal tumors with nephron-sparing surgery. Materials and Methods: Records of patients who underwent nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) either through open or laparoscopic approach between May 1997 and June 2006 at our institution were reviewed. Patient and tumor-related characteristics, treatment modality and complications were noted. Results: There were 26 patients (29 renal units), including three with bilateral lesions who underwent nephron-sparing surgery. Mean age at surgery was 47.0 years (range 16-67 years). Mean tumor size was 4.7 cm (range 2-7.5 cm). Mean warm ischemia time was 41 min and 32.5 min, operative time 158 min and 186 min and blood loss 200ml and 85 ml in open (n=24) and laparoscopic approach (n=2) respectively. Complications were seen in five (19.2%) patients of whom two had postoperative bleeding requiring nephrectomy in one and angioembolization in another. One patient with persistent urinary leak required intervention. Local wound infection in one patient and incisional hernia in another were surgically managed. Histopathological profile revealed 13 (44.8%) benign lesions which included angiomyolipoma (eight), simple cyst (two), cortical adenoma (one), metanephric adenoma (one) and myelolipoma (one). The remaining 16 (55.2%) malignant lesions included renal cell carcinoma (15) and metastatic adenocarcinoma (one). At a mean follow-up of 38.6 months (range 1-91) no patient had local recurrence or distant metastasis. Cancer-specific survival was 100% and overall survival was 92.3%. Conclusions: Nephron-sparing surgery is a safe and effective alternative to nephrectomy in both benign and malignant lesions of the kidney.

Apical block versus basolateral prostatic plexus block in transrectal ultrasound guided prostatic biopsy: A prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVES: We prospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of apical block, bilateral (B/L) basolateral prostatic plexus block and unilateral (U/L) basolateral prostatic plexus block in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)- guided prostatic biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 2003 to July 2004, 60 patients of median age 63 yrs and median PSA of15.8 ng/ml, underwent TRUS- guided prostatic biopsies. These biopsies were performed in the left lateral position, after cleansing enema and single dose of antibiotic. Patients were randomized into 3 groups. Under TRUS guidance, group1 (n=20) received 10 ml of 1% lignocaine at the apical area of the prostate, group 2 (n=20) received 5 ml of 1% lignocaine in the basolateral prostatic plexus bilaterally and group 3 (n=20) received 10 ml of 1% lignocaine at basolateral prostatic plexus unilaterally, using an 18 F needle. Five minutes after the injection, a series of 10 prostatic biopsies were performed. Pain during biopsy was assessed using visual analogue pain score. RESULTS: Patients with apical prostatic block had significantly lower pain scores (1.5 ± 0.9) than those with B/L (2.6 ±1.2) and U/L basolateral prostatic plexus block (2.8 ± 1.4). The three groups were similar in regard to age, prostatic volume and number of cores. CONCLUSIONS: Apical prostatic plexus block was the most effective technique and could be a useful alternative to basolateral prostatic plexus block.

Prospective randomized trial to evaluate effectiveness of periprostatic nerve block in prostatic biopsy

Objectives: The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of local anesthetic infiltration, in decreasing the discomfort experienced by patients undergoing trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy of prostate. Materials and methods: Between January 2002 and February 2003, we investigated consecutively, asymptomatic men, suspected of having prostatic cancer. About 39 patients were randomized to receive 10 ml of 2% Lidocaine periprostatic block + intrarectal Lidocaine gel (group 1 = 20), or intarectal Lidocaine gel only (group 2 = 19) during prostatic biopsy. Immediately following the TRUS-guided biopsy, patients were asked to grade the pain they experienced using the 11-point visual analogue score (VAS). Results: The mean pain score in the patients of group 1 were significantly lower than the patients of group 2 ( P <0.001), suggesting that periprostatic block produced a significant reduction in the perceived pain. Conclusions: Local anesthetic infiltration by TRUS-guided injection of Lidocaine is effective for decreasing pain associated with prostatic biopsy.