This study showed that SWL in pediatric age group for both renal and ureteral stone is cost effective, safe with an acceptable re-treatment rate; however children with large stone burden or previous urologic surgery have low success rate.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives:We retrospectively evaluated our experience with a relatively uncommon procedure, the laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, for the treatment of ureteral stones. Methods: Between April 2002 and October 2006, a total of 74 patients (56 males, 18 females) with upper (54 cases), middle (18 cases) and lower (two cases) ureteral stones underwent laparoscopic ureterolithomy. The mean age was 39.4 years (range, 19-74). The stones were in the right side in 44 cases (59.5%) and in the left side in 30 (40.5%) cases. The mean stone size was 1.8 cm (range 1.5-2.8). The procedure was retroperitoneal in 66 cases (89.2%) and transperitoneal in eight (10.8%) cases. Laparoscopic guided flexible ureterorenoscopic extraction of kidney stone was carried out in one case as an adjuvant procedure. The ureter was stented and not sutured in 64 cases (86.5%). Results:The procedure was successfully completed in 94.6% of cases and an open conversion was carried out in four (5.4%) patients. The mean operative time was 58.7 min, and the mean blood loss was 90.6 mL. No major complications were encountered. Prolonged urinary leakage occurred in one patient. The mean hospital stay was 6.4 days. One patient developed ureteral stricture during follow up and was treated by endoscopic dilatation and stenting. Conclusion: In our experience laparoscopic ureterolithotomy represents a safe and effective treatment option for ureteral stones either as primary for large impacted stones or as a salvage procedure after failed shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy. This procedure fulfills the advantages of minimal blood loss and analgesia requirements, good cosmetic appearance, short hospital stay and convalescence period.

OBJECTIVETo present our experience with repairing penile fracture, based on clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. December 2002 and October 2004, 14 men (19-64 years old) presented to our centre with a penile fracture. Two patients had urethral bleeding. MRI was used before surgery in all patients, and the repair comprised a localized longitudinal penile incision in 13 men. This incision was designed according to the tunical tear site and size already depicted by MRI. One case was managed conservatively, as MRI confirmed an intercavernosal haematoma with no tunical tear. The follow-up was 4-21 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between RESULTSThe tear involved one corpus cavernosum in 11 patients; two were associated with urethral injury. The course after repair was uneventful in all men; the follow-up showed no erectile dysfunction in any. The patients reported neither pain nor penile curvature during erection. CONCLUSIONMRI is a simple and informative investigation for evaluating and documenting a penile fracture, and it improves the management plan.