<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The Butterfly Prostatic Retraction device is a novel transurethral implant designed to dilate the prostatic urethra and treat lower urinary tract symptoms. We assessed its safety, efficacy and impact on urinary flow, ejaculation, and quality of life. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> We included 64 men, treated for benign prostate hyperplasia for at least 1 year. All patients had Qmax≤ 13 mL/s and IPSS &#x3e;12. Insertion of the device was performed via cystoscopy. Follow-up visits were performed at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and included uroflowmetry, IPSS, QoL, and sexual function questionnaires. Cystoscopy was performed on 3 and 12 months. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Patients age was 50–83 years. 28 patients completed a 1-year follow-up with an intact device. Mean Qmax improved by 2 mL/s (25%), IPSS median drop was 10 points (40%), and QoL score was 1.5 points (38%). Sexually active patients reported antegrade ejaculation. On cystoscopy, gradual coverage of the devices with urethral mucosa was observed. In 1 patient, the device was repositioned. In 19 patients, the device was removed. 12 patients returned to alpha-blocker therapy and 7 patients underwent TURP. One patient developed a bulbar urethral stricture. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> We demonstrated feasibility and good tolerability of the Butterfly device.

665 Background: In the last 2 decades, the rates of metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) at diagnosis declined from 33% to 17%This fact is attributed to massive penetration of cross sectional imaging leading to a marked stage migration. The cost of targeted therapy for metastatic RCC patients is very high. These trends led us to hypothesize that screening for RCC with ultrasound may be cost effective. Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of screening with ultrasound for renal tumors in the general population over 60 years of age. Methods: Using the Markov model, a mathematical framework was set up describing the course of disease with and without screening for RCC using abdominal ultrasonography. Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and financial costs were the outputs of the model. Results: Average costs for the screening strategy was 137.4 U$ and for non-screening was 31.4 U$. Screening and non-screening strategy would add an average of 21.7396 and 21.7385 QALY, respectively. An increase of 0.001 QALY equates to Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of 86,4 U$ per QALY, Currently, the cost which is considered cost effective for 1 QALY point is approximately 27,548.21 U$. The two variables most influential on the model output were prevalence of RCC and US cost. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the sole cost benefit screening study performed for RCC in the targeted therapy era. Screening for renal tumors using abdominal ultrasonography at a cost of 35.81 U$ per exam is cost effective. Our findings are highly suggestive that early screening for RCC may be cost effective for preventing RCC metastatic disease and nevertheless will save lives.

No abstract

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of duration of ureteroscopy for urolithiasis on complication rates of the procedure.

No abstract