PurposeTo determine whether the distance from skin to stone, as measured by computed tomography (CT) scans, could affect the stone-free rate achieved via extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in renal stone patients.Materials and MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the records 573 patients who had undergone ESWL at our institution between January 2006 and January 2010 for urinary stones sized from about 5 mm to 20 mm and who had no evidence of stone movement. We excluded patients with ureteral catheters and percutaneous nephrostomy patients; ultimately, only 43 patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We classified the success group as those patients whose stones had disappeared on a CT scan or simple X-ray within 6 weeks after ESWL and the failure group as those patients in whom residual stone fragments remained on a CT scan or simple X-ray after 6 weeks. We analyzed the differences between the two groups in age, sex, size of stone, skin-to-stone distance (SSD), stone location, density (Hounsfield unit: HU), voltage (kV), and the number of shocks delivered.ResultsThe success group included 33 patients and the failure group included 10. In the univariate and multivariate analysis, age, sex, size of stone, stone location, HU, kV and the number of shocks delivered did not differ significantly between the two groups. Only SSD was a factor influencing success: the success group clearly had a shorter SSD (78.25±12.15 mm) than did the failure group (92.03±14.51 mm). The results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed SSD to be the only significant independent predictor of the ESWL stone-free rate.ConclusionsSSD can be readily measured by CT scan; the ESWL stone-free rate was inversely proportional to SSD in renal stone patients. SSD may therefore be a useful clinical predictive factor of the success of ESWL on renal stones.

PurposeTo evaluate the distribution of ureteral stones and to determine their characteristics and expulsion rate based on their location.Materials and MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed computed tomography (CT) findings of 246 patients who visited our Emergency Department (ED) for renal colic caused by unilateral ureteral stones between January 2013 and April 2014. Histograms were constructed to plot the distribution of stones based on initial CT findings. Data from 144 of the 246 patients who underwent medical expulsive therapy (MET) for 2 weeks were analyzed to evaluate the factors responsible for the stone distribution and expulsion.ResultsThe upper ureter and ureterovesical junction (UVJ) were 2 peak locations at which stones initially lodged. Stones lodged at the upper ureter and ureteropelvic junction (group A) had a larger longitudinal diameter (4.21 mm vs. 3.56 mm, p=0.004) compared to those lodged at the lower ureter and UVJ (group B). The expulsion rate was 75.6% and 94.9% in groups A and B, respectively. There was no significant difference in the time interval from initiation of renal colic to arrival at the ED between groups A and B (p=0.422). Stone diameter was a significant predictor of MET failure (odds ratio [OR], 1.795; p=0.005) but the initial stone location was not (OR, 0.299; p=0.082).ConclusionsThe upper ureter and UVJ are 2 peak sites at which stones lodge. For stone size 10 mm or less, initial stone lodge site is not a significant predictor of MET failure in patients who have no previous history of active stone treatment in the ureter.

PurposeTo analyze the baseline clinical factors and medication treatment strategy used in cases with medication treatment failure of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).MethodsFrom January 2006 to December 2009, 677 BPH patients with at least 3 months of treatment with medication were enrolled. We analyzed clinical factors by medication failure (n=161) versus maintenance (n=516), by prostate size (less than 30 g, n=231; 30 to 50 g, n=244; greater than 50 g, n=202), and by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (less than 1.4 ng/mL, n=324; more than 1.4 ng/mL, n=353).ResultsAge, combination medication rate, PSA, and prostate volume were statistically different between the medication treatment failure and maintenance groups. By prostate size, the PSA and medication failure rates were relatively higher and the medication period was shorter in patients with a prostate size of more than 30 g. The combination medication rate was higher in patients with a prostate size of more than 50 g. The medication failure rate and prostate volume were higher in patients with a PSA level of more than 1.4 ng/mL. However, the combination treatment rate was not significantly different in patients with a PSA level lower than 1.4 ng/mL. Suggestive cutoffs for combination medication are a prostate volume of 34 g and PSA level of 1.9 ng/mL.ConclusionsThe clinical factors associated with medication failure were age, treatment type, and prostate volume. Combination therapy should be considered more in Korea in patients with a PSA level higher than 1.4 ng/mL and a prostate volume of between 30 and 50 g to prevent medication failure.

PurposeTo assess the ability of preoperative variables to predict extracapsular extension (ECE) and positive surgical margin (PSM) in radical prostatectomy patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of less than 10 ng/ml.Materials and MethodsFrom January 2008 to December 2009, 121 patients with prostate cancer with PSA levels lower than 10 ng/ml who underwent radical prostatectomy were enrolled in the study. The differences in clinical factors (age, PSA, PSA density [PSAD], digital rectal examination [DRE] positivity, positive magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], Gleason sum, positive core number, and positive biopsy core percentage) with ECE and the presence of positive margins were determined and their independent predictive significances were analyzed.ResultsThe ECE-positive patients had higher PSA, PSAD, and MRI-positive percentages, and PSM patients had higher PSA, PSAD, MRI-positive percentages, Gleason sum, and positive biopsy core percentages for prostate cancer. In the multivariate analysis, PSAD and MRI positivity were the best independent predictors for ECE, and PSA and PSAD were the best independent predictors of PSM. By receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, PSAD had better discriminative area under the curve value than did PSA for ECE (0.765 vs 0.661) and PSM (0.780 vs 0.624). The best predictive PSAD value was 0.29 ng/ml/cc for ECE and 0.27 ng/ml/cc for PSM.ConclusionsPSAD has relevance to ECE (plus MRI findings) and PSM (plus PSA). PSAD might be a powerful predictor of ECE and PSM preoperatively in patients undergoing a radical prostatectomy with PSA levels of less than 10 ng/ml.

Materials and Methods:From July 2007 to July 2010, 354 benign prostatic hyperplasia patients with combination medication：alpha blocker plus 5-ARI were enrolled. These patients were classified into a finasteride medication group (F group) and dutasteride medication group (D group) retrospectively. We initially measured the total prostate volume (TPV), prostate specific antigen (PSA), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life score (QoL), maximal flow rate (Qmax), and post-void residual urine (PVR). After at least twelve months of medication, we rechecked these clinical parameters and during medication, side effects related to medication were also recorded. Results:The F group (n=129) and D group (n=225) showed no differences in baseline characteristics for age, TPV, IPSS, QoL scores, or PSA. After medication, decreases in TPV were relatively higher in the D group than the F group (28.2% vs 20.5%). In addition, the decrease in PSA (43.6% vs 39.2%) and IPSS score (4.6 vs 3.5)were also higher in the D group. There were no significant differences in QoL score, Qmax, PVR change, or side effects between the two groups. Conclusions:Dutasteride showed greater efficacy in reduction of TPV and PSA and in symptomatic improvement by IPSS score than finasteride. More large scale studies about the differences on clinical efficacy of finasteride and dutasteride are needed.