Postoperative urinary incontinence has a major impact on patient satisfaction after radical prostatectomy. Attention to factors including patient selection, nuances of the surgical technique, and a more uniform, widespread agreement on the definition and instruments to measure postoperative incontinence is needed to enhance surgical outcomes. In addition, further research is needed to improve the diagnosis and treatment of urinary incontinence after prostate cancer surgery.

The proper algorithm for the radiographic evaluation of children with febrile urinary tract infection (FUTI) is hotly debated. Three studies are commonly administered: renal-bladder ultrasound (RUS), voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG), and dimercapto-succinic acid (DMSA) scan. However, the order in which these tests are obtained depends on the methodology followed: bottom-up or top-down. Each strategy carries advantages and disadvantages, and some groups now advocate even less of a workup (none of the above) due to the current controversies about treatment when abnormalities are diagnosed. New technology is available and still under investigation, but it may help to clarify the interplay between vesicoureteral reflux, renal scarring, and dysfunctional elimination in the future.

Introduction Pharmacotherapies improve sexual function following treatments for localized prostate cancer; however, patterns of care remain unknown. Aim To ascertain post-treatment utilization of pharmacotherapies for erectile dysfunction (ED) using a population-based approach. Methods We identified 38,958 men who underwent definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer during 2003–2006 from the MarketScan Medstat data. Main Outcome Measures We compared the use of ED pharmacotherapy at baseline (up to 3 months prior) and up to 30 months following radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT) for localized prostate cancer by utilizing National Drug Classification codes for phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5I), intracavernosal injectable therapies (IT), urethral suppositories and vacuum erection devices (VED). In adjusted analyses, we controlled for the effect of age, comorbidity, type of treatment, health plan and use of adjuvant hormone therapy on the use of pharmacotherapies. Results Men undergoing RP vs. RT were younger with less co-morbid conditions. Utilization of PDE5I was up to three times greater for men undergoing RP vs. RT, 25.6% vs. 8.8%, (P <0.0001) in the first post-treatment year, and usage of these agents was greatest for men undergoing minimally-invasive RP procedures. A higher percentage of men also used IT, suppositories and VED after RP vs. RT (P <0.001). However, more men in the RT group received adjuvant hormonal therapy (39.53% vs. 5.25% for RP, P <0.01). In adjusted analyses, men undergoing RP vs. RT were more than two times likely (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.98, 2.26) to use PDE5I post-treatment while men on adjuvant hormonal therapy were less likely to use PDE5I (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.70–0.79, P <0.0001). Conclusion Men undergoing RP vs. RT, particularly minimally-invasive RP, are more likely to employ IT, suppositories, VED, and PDE5I pharmacotherapy post-treatment.

No abstract