<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> From May to December 2019, a literature review of the urinary system iatrogenic injury problem was performed. The most cited, representative articles in PubMed, Scopus, and WoS databases dedicated to this problem were selected. Urinary system iatrogenic injuries include ureter, bladder, urethra, and kidney traumas. It is widely thought that the main causes of such injuries are urological, obstetric, gynecological, and surgical operations on the retroperitoneal space, pelvis, or perineum. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The purpose of the study is to describe all aspects of the iatrogenic injure problem, under the established scheme and for each of the most damaged organs: the urethra, bladder, kidney, and ureter. The treatment of confirmed iatrogenic injuries largely depends on the period of its detection. Modern medical procedures provide conservative or minimally invasive treatment. An untimely diagnosis worsens the treatment prognosis. “Overlooked” urinary system trauma is a serious threat to society and a particular patient. Thus, incorrect or traumatic catheterization can lead to infection (RR 95%) and urethral stricture (RR ≥11–36%), and percutaneous puncture nephrostomy can cause the risk of functional renal parenchyma loss (median 5%), urinary congestion (7%), or sepsis (0.6–1.5%). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Lost gain, profits, long-term and expensive, possibly multistage treatment, stress and depression, and the risks of suicide put a heavy financial, moral, and ethical burden on a person and society. Also, iatrogenic injury might have legal consequences. <b><i>Discussion/Conclusion:</i></b> Thus, the significant problem of urinary tract iatrogenic injuries is still difficult to solve. There is a need to implement mandatory examining algorithms for patients at risk, as well as the multidisciplinary principle for all pelvic surgery.

Purpose: This study analyzed the effectiveness of minimizing surgical trauma, reducing the severity of the stress reaction, and restoring the normal functioning of the body after planned gallbladder operations under an enhanced recovery program. Materials and Methods: This prospective comparison study included 30 patients from the surgical department of Irkutsk Clinical Hospital No. 1 who had been diagnosed with cholelithiasis in 2019-2020. All 30 patients completed the study and were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the FTS group (group I, n = 15) and the standard group (group II, n = 15). The comparison groups were statistically homogeneous in terms of preoperative parameters. All patients underwent prescribed surgeries. In the early and late postoperative period, there were no cases of mortality or significant complications. Results: A comparison of the groups with respect to the effectiveness of treatment according to established criteria showed good treatment results for 13 (86.6%) patients in group I and 2 (13.3%) patients in group II (p = 0.016). The FTS treatment protocol was a significant predictor of treatment success (OR 3.1; 95% CI 0.2; 6.0; p = 0.033). Conclusion: The fast track surgery protocol gave superior results for surgical treatment in comparison with the standard protocol in patients with cholelithiasis.

Objective: This article presents retrospective analysis conducted on the basis of the General Surgery Clinic of the Irkutsk State Medical University (ISMU). Materials and methods: 165 cases of abdominal tuberculosis (AT) were detected and analyzed. The sample was made from the total number of patients who were treated in the surgical department for urgent reasons from 2009 to 2018. Results and Discussion: Proportion of hospitalized AT cases from the total number increases every year and slightly decreases only after 2013. The largest number of hospitalizations in 2013 was 29 cases or 2.1%. General characteristics are as follows: 95% of patients were 30–35 years old, 93% used drugs, 80% were HIV positive, and 88.3% suffered abdominal pain. Tuberculosis of the gastrointestinal tract with ulcer perforation was more common (53.7%). 140 (84.5%) patients had history of operation. Overall mortality was 57.6%. Conclusion: The main cause of mortality was generalized tuberculosis. The contribution of these cases to the overall mortality over the period taken was not possible to estimate. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science Vol.18(4) 2019 p.796-800

Introduction Urinary system iatrogenic injuries appear because of urological, obstetric-gynecological, and surgical manipulations in the retroperitoneal space, pelvis, or perineum. The purpose of this research was to analyze and obtain knowledge about the issue of iatrogenic injuries, to apply injury prevention algorithms, and to assess multidisciplinary perspectives in modern surgery. Material and methods The research was interdisciplinary and consisted of several modules: a prospective, single-centre study of urinary system iatrogenic injuries (476 patients) along with four interregional and international procedural types of research. Results The analysis results indicate an extremely high significance of urinary system injuries evoking numerous negative consequences that are hard to eliminate. A comparative assessment of interdisciplinary interaction demonstrates the more effective interpretation of examination results, more comprehensive and credible clinical diagnosis, more qualitative evaluation of a patient’s condition, more effective choice of initial treatment policy, and more satisfactory treatment in patients’ opinion. The research allowed for the identification of a typical procedural mistake in the urethral catheter setting causing a high risk of urethra injuries followed by urethra strictures or consecutive infections of the urinary tract. Conclusions More complicated treatment procedures cause a higher probability of urinary system iatrogenic injuries. The absence of unified algorithms and typical procedural mistakes cause such incidents. A partial solution to this issue could be found in a more profound interdisciplinary interaction in all treatment phases as well as in identifying and eliminating procedural mistakes.