Biomedical subjects

Ji-Hwan Hyun

Publications and source records attributed to Ji-Hwan Hyun.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

A comparison of holmium:YAG laser with Lithoclast lithotripsy in ureteral calculi fragmentation.

PURPOSE: Among various intracorporeal lithotriptors, Lithoclast (EMS, Switzerland) has become the widely used tool for the treatment of urinary stones. Recently, the holmium:YAG laser has been used with a wide range of potential urological applications, including intracorporeal lithotripsy of urinary calculi. The purpose of the present study is to compare Lithoclast with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy in ureteral calculi fragmentation. METHODS: Out of 51 patients with ureteral calculi, 26 underwent Lithoclast lithotripsy and 25 holmium:YAG lithotripsy using a 8/9.8F rigid ureteroscope. There were no changes to the ureteroscopes, video monitors, baskets or irrigation devices during the study period. RESULTS: There were no differences in patient age, sex, stone size and location of stones between these groups. The immediate stone-free rates were 96.0% in the holmium:YAG group and 73.1% in the Lithoclast group (P < 0.05). The 3-month stone-free rates were 96.0% and 84.6%, respectively (P = 0.350). The mean operation time and mean period of postoperative hospitalization in the holmium:YAG group (49.8 min and 1.0 days, respectively) were shorter than those of the Lithoclast counterpart (76.9 min and 2.5 days, respectively). Post-treatment complications, such as ureteral perforation, were encountered in only two patients who underwent Lithoclast. CONCLUSIONS: Holmium:YAG lithotripsy was associated with shorter operation time and postoperative hospitalization period. These data also suggest that holmium:YAG lithotripsy was safe and more effective than Lithoclast lithotripsy in the aspect of immediate stone free rate. We believe that holmium:YAG laser is an excellent treatment modality for managing ureteral calculi.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Bisacodyl rectal preparation can decrease infectious complications of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether rectal preparation before transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy could decrease the rate of infectious complications and to find any possible risk factors affecting the development of complications. METHODS: This retrospective study included 879 cases of TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. All patients received antibiotic prophylaxis with levofloxacin or cefixime orally before biopsy and continually for 7 days after. A total of 456 patients received bisacodyl rectal preparation the night before or on the morning of the biopsy, and 423 did not. Major complications were defined as serious side effects requiring additional treatment. Infectious complications were classified as sepsis, fever (greater than 38 degrees C) without sepsis, and other clinical infection. We evaluated whether rectal preparation before biopsy could decrease infectious complications. Other potential risk factors were also investigated. RESULTS: Major complications developed in 47 cases (5.3%), including 1 vasovagal episode, 10 cases of urinary retention, and 46 infectious complications, of which 19 were sepsis and 11 fever without sepsis. Among the potential risk factors, the number of biopsy cores and use of a rectal preparation were statistically significant risk factors influencing the development of infectious complications in multiple logistic regression analysis (P = 0.038 and P = 0.000, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The number of biopsy cores and prebiopsy rectal preparation use were statistically significant risk factors for infectious complications after prostate biopsy in our study. Thus, we recommend a rectal preparation before prostate biopsy to minimize the risk of infectious complications.

Adenocarcinoma↗