Introduction Penile strangulation is rare and usually results following placement of constricting objects to enhance sexual stimulation. It requires urgent treatment as delay may lead to irreversible penile ischemia and gangrene. Various objects causing penile strangulation have been reported. Nonmetallic and thin metallic objects can be removed easily as compared to heavy metallic objects. Cutting is the commonest method described, although procuring special cutting tools may be difficult and the process of cutting may be tedious with the possibility of iatrogenic penile injury. Aim To present a simple, safe, minimally invasive, effective, and feasible technique for removing heavy metallic objects constricting the penis. Methods The published English literature (PubMed™) was searched for cases of “penile strangulation” using the keywords penile strangulation, penile injury, penile trauma, penile constriction, penile entrapment, and penile incarceration. The described treatment modalities were carefully reviewed and studied. Main Outcome Measures Reviewed published English literature on the various causes of penile incarceration and the various techniques used for their extrication. Results Search results yielded several cases of penile strangulation caused by a variety of metallic and nonmetallic objects. Various modalities have been described in the English literature for their safe removal, each with its own merits and demerits. Conclusions Penile strangulation should be viewed and managed as an emergency in order to prevent penile necrosis and urethral injury and to preserve erectile function. The modified method described herein for managing penile strangulation due to heavy metallic rings is minimally invasive, safe, effective, does not require any special cutting instrument(s) or skill, and is free of causing iatrogenic collateral thermal or mechanical damage to the penile organ. A stepwise algorithm depicting a rational and comprehensive approach to the diagnosis and management of penile incarceration is also suggested for the clinicians.

Brain metastases constitute one of the most common distant metastases of cancer and are increasingly being detected with better diagnostic tools. The standard of care for solitary brain metastases with the primary disease under control is surgery followed by radiotherapy. Radiotherapy is also the primary modality for the treatment of multiple brain metastases, and improves both the quality of life and survival of patient. Unfortunately, more than half of these treated patients eventually progress leading to a therapeutic dilemma. Another course of radiotherapy is a viable but underutilized option. Reirradiation resolves distressing symptoms and has shown to improve survival with minimal late neurotoxicity. Reirradiation has conventionally been done with whole brain radiotherapy, but now studies with stereotactic radiosurgery have also shown promising results. In this review, we focus on reirradiation as a treatment modality in such patients. We performed a literature search in MEDLINE (www.pubmed.org) with key words brain metastases, reirradiation, whole brain radiotherapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, interstial brachytherapy, and brain. The search was limited to the English literature and human subjects.

Aim:To evaluate the role of virtual cystoscopy (VC) comparing it with cystopanendoscopy (CPE) for detecting bladder tumor(s).Material and Methods:Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional ethics committee. After an informed consent 30 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the prospective non-randomized clinical study and were evaluated as per protocol with VC performed by a qualified radiologist who was blinded to the findings of CPE performed by a qualified urologist. The results so obtained were analyzed using appropriate statistical tools.Results:The mean age of the patients was 56 years. Sensitivity of VC in detecting bladder lesions was 92%. However, when axial images were also interpreted along with VC, the sensitivity increased to 96% for detecting bladder lesions. The specificity of VC with axial CT was 40% in respect of detecting bladder lesions. VC with axial CT was 85.7% sensitive in identifying multiple bladder tumors. There were no complications on account of performing VC. Minor problems were encountered with VC and CPE in 16.7% and 13.3% patients respectively.Conclusions:VC with axial CT is 96% sensitive in detecting bladder lesions and 85.7% sensitive in detecting the multiplicity of the tumors. VC may be a useful complementary diagnostic tool for the workup of select patients with suspected bladder lesions. However, larger randomized controlled studies are needed to better define the precise clinical and diagnostic role of VC in routine practice.Settings and Design:Prospective Clinical Comparative Non Randomized Clinical Study.

No abstract

No abstract