Background Smart lens is a magnifying device that turns the smartphone into a microscopic exploring instrument. It is a convenient and inexpensive tool as an on-site evaluation device for the kidney biopsy specimen. We demonstrate the benefit of using a handheld smartphone microscope compared to the standard procedure in allograft kidney specimens. Material and methods This was a cohort study of allograft kidney biopsies performed between June 2015 and November 2017 in Srinagarind Hospital, Khon Kaen University, Thailand. The clinical utility of the “Chula smart lens” applied to the smartphone as an on-site evaluation device was studied. Clinical data, diagnostic quality, and complications were retrospectively reviewed and compared between the smart lens group and the standard group. Results The study cohort consisted of 93 allograft kidney biopsies (standard:47, smart lens:46). The mean age was 40.6 (18–48) years, and 63 patients (67.7%) were male. By using the smart lens device, the number of obtained tissue cores was higher (3.5 vs 2.9, p = 0.019) and the inadequacy rate for diagnosis was significantly lower (7% vs 21.3%, p = 0.05). Conclusion Using a handheld smartphone microscope as an on-site evaluation device resulted in more positive glomeruli and diagnostic yield compared to the standard procedure.

No abstract

Objectives To report outcomes of surgical treatment in patients with penile foreign body granuloma and compare surgical outcomes between single‐ and two‐stage scrotal flap reconstructions. Methods Medical records of patients with penile foreign body granuloma who underwent surgical treatment were reviewed. Patients with single‐ and two‐stage scrotal flap reconstructions were compared. Results Forty‐two patients underwent surgical treatment from January 1, 2018 to October 31, 2022. Twenty‐three patients underwent single‐stage reconstruction with bilateral scrotal flap while 12 patients underwent two‐stage repair with 19 operations. Five patients underwent circumcision; one had excision with primary closure. Another patient underwent reconstruction by penile skin preservation technique. There was no statistically significant differences between single‐ and two‐stage groups in wound infection (8.69% vs. 0%, RR 2.71, 95%CI; 0.14–52.29), wound dehiscence (21.74% vs. 8.33%, RR 2.61, 95%CI 0.34–19.87), reoperation rate (26.08% vs. 8.33%, RR 3.13, 95%CI; 0.42–23.10). Postoperative fever was significantly higher in single‐stage group (56.52 vs. 8.33%, RR 6.78, 95%CI; 1.01–43.83). Total length of hospital stay was shorter in single‐stage group (7.43 ± 3.19 days vs. 10.86 ± 1.57 days, MD −3.42, 95%CI; −5.28 to −1.57). Incidence of patients without Clavien–Dindo surgical complications was significantly lower in single‐stage group (43.48% vs. 83.33%, RR 0.53, 95%CI; 0.31–0.89). Conclusions Both single‐ and two‐stage techniques may be considered for penile foreign body granuloma reconstruction. Although the hospital stay was longer in two‐stage group, the complication rates were lower.