ObjectiveTo assess the diagnostic accuracy and safety of photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UUTUC).Materials and methodsA systematic literature search was conducted. Included studies were assessed for the risks of bias and quality using appropriate tools. Dedicated data extraction forms were used. Diagnostic accuracy in terms of sensitivity and specificity were quoted whenever provided by individual studies. A combined toxicity profile of 5-aminolevulinic acid (5ALA) was given after reviewing individual studies.ResultsIn all, 17 studies were identified. After screening seven studies were included involving a total of 194 patients. None of the studies were randomised. All the available studies were of low-to-moderate quality. The largest available study, with 106 patients, reported a sensitivity of 95.8% and 53.5% for PDD and white-light (WL) ureterorenoscopy (URS) respectively, with a statistically significant difference. The specificity was 96.6% for PDD and 95.2% for WL-URS with no statistical significance. PDD showed better ability in detecting carcinoma in situ and dysplasia. One study compared PDD to computed tomography urogram (CTU) and found PDD to have better sensitivity and statistically significantly better specificity. 5ALA-associated toxicity was minor in nature and hypotension was the most common adverse event.ConclusionPDD in UUTUC appears to be more accurate than WL-URS and CTU, with no significant toxicity. Larger scale randomised trials are needed.
A case of periurethral abscess with an underlying deep dorsal vein thrombosis in a 35- year-old-male with a large bladder calculus is reported. The patient received antibiotics, a topical heparinoid, and underwent open cystolithotomy. The abscess drained spontaneously as the patient refused surgical intervention. He recovered with no penile deformity and maintained erectile function at 6 months from discharge.
The ureteral insertion of a silicone tube was first performed in 1967. A validated ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ) is used for an objective assessment of patient-reported stent-related symptoms. As the impact of stent diameter on the incidence of stent-related symptoms is unclear, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing USSQ reported outcomes when using a 6 Fr diameter ureteric stent, versus smaller diameter stents (4.7–5 Fr) when inserted for ureteric stones. All randomized control trials and comparative studies of 6 Fr versus 4.7–5 Fr ureteric stents were reviewed. The USSQ outcomes were considered as the primary outcome measures while stent migration was considered as a secondary outcome measure. A total of 61 articles were identified of which four studies met the eligibility criteria. There was a statistically significant association between the use of wider (6 Fr) diameter stents and the incidence of urinary symptoms as measured by the urinary index score. Larger stent diameters were associated with a statistically significant increase in the pain index score. There was no statistically significant difference in the scores between the compared stent diameters with regard to work performance score, general health index score, additional problems index score, and stent migration. There were insufficient reported outcomes to perform a meta-analysis of sexual matters index score. Our meta-analysis shows that using smaller diameter ureteric stents is associated with reduced urinary symptoms and patient-reported pain. Other USSQ parameter outcomes are statistically similar in the 6 Fr ureteric stent cohort versus the 4.7–5 Fr ureteric stent cohort. Our meta-analysis was limited due to the limited number of studies and gross heterogeneity of reporting parameters in various studies. We hope a large-scale homogeneous randomized control trial will further shed more insight into the stent symptoms response to stent diameter.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.