Rajiv Goyal

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.

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.

Uroflowmetry, trans rectal ultra sonography and power doppler to develop a less invasive bladder outlet obstruction score in benign prostatic hyperplasia: A prospective analysis

OBJECTIVE : To evaluate the ability of transrectal power doppler sonography (TRPDS) in combination with conventional grey scale transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS), uroflowmetry and clinical parameters, to predict bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS : Sixty-nine male patients with more than 50 years of age, presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms were evaluated prospectively for BOO secondary to BPH. TRUS was done to estimate prostate volume (PV), transition zone volume (TZV), median lobe projection in the bladder (ML) and bladder wall thickness (BWT). TRPDS was done to measure resistive index (RI) of transition zone vessels. All patients also underwent PFS and depending upon its results, the patients were divided into Group 1 [Abram-Griffiths (AG) number 40). Mean values of TRUS and TRPDS parameters and uroflowmetry in the two groups were compared to identify predictive factors for BOO. RESULTS : Demographic profile of Group 1 (n= 42) was similar to that of Group 2 (n= 27). Significant independent factors for prediction of BOO were maximum flow rate, resistive index of transition zone, median lobe projection into the bladder and post void residue. BOO scoring system was developed based on these 4 factors, which showed a specificity of 77.8% and a sensitivity of 85.7%, with an overall predictive value of 82.6%. CONCLUSIONS : Transrectal power doppler ultrasonography (resistive index) in combination with uroflowmetry, median lobe projection in bladder and post void residue measurement can predict BOO with a high specificity and sensitivity.

Port site metastasis of renal cell carcinoma after laparoscopic transperitoneal radical nephrectomy

Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy is a safe and oncologically appropriate treatment modality for patients with renal cell carcinoma.[1] Till date, there are only 3 cases of port site metastasis reported after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. We herein report another case of port site recurrence after transperitoneal radical nephrectomy for a 5 cm renal tumor.