Bladder endometriosis: pertinent clinical images.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Adult↗
Biomedical subjects
R A Batler
Publications and source records attributed to R A Batler.
Bedside ureteral stenting for the critically ill patient: technical considerations.
Bedside ureteral stenting, although a challenging technique, can be achieved with frequent success by using some simple endoscopic maneuvers. By understanding the relationship of the working port to the lens and light source, surgeons can supinate or pronate their wrist to cannulate the ureteral orifices with greater success.
Critical Care↗
Hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: the experience of the inexperienced.
PURPOSE: We retrospectively examined the experience of novice laparoscopic surgeons performing hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. The purpose was to determine if urologists with minimal laparoscopic training could perform hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomies in a safe and efficient manner. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The first six hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomies performed by four different urology residents at the Chicago Lakeside VA hospital were reviewed. The residents included three chief urology residents and one postgraduate year 3 urology resident. None of the residents had taken any laparoscopic course, and all had limited exposure to the hand-assisted technique. In all cases, the residents performed the entire operation. The patients were evaluated for operative time, tumor size, body mass index, and ASA score. RESULTS: All six procedures were completed without conversion to the open technique. The average operating time was 215.8 minutes, and the time from incision to organ removal averaged 140.8 minutes. The average estimated blood loss was 166 mL. Complications included an intraoperative diaphragmatic injury (recognized and repaired laparoscopically) and one postoperative ileus. CONCLUSION: Hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy can be performed safely and efficiently by urologists with minimal laparoscopic experience.
Clinical Competence↗
Hand-assisted vs. retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy.
PURPOSE: We retrospectively compared our initial experience with the hand-assisted and retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy techniques to determine if there are important differences between these approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four laparoscopic cases consisting of 12 hand-assisted and 12 retroperitoneal nephrectomies were compared. All cases but one were radical nephrectomies with intact specimen extraction performed for suspected stage T1 neoplasms. Data were collected from medical records and a postoperative questionnaire. To determine if significant learning curves existed, the first six nephrectomies in each group were compared with the second six nephrectomies on the basis of operative criteria. The two groups did not differ significantly in age, body mass index, ASA rating, or number of previous abdominal operations. RESULTS: Although the mean tumor volume was greater in the hand-assisted group than the retroperitoneal group, the difference did not quite reach statistical significance (91.19 v 24.7 cc3; P = 0.06). The mean operative time, estimated blood loss, narcotic use (milligrams of intravenous morphine equivalent), hours to oral intake, hospital stay, and estimated percent activity at 2 weeks for the hand-assisted group (238.33 min, 293.75 mL, 35.7 mg, 17.56 hours, 4.4 days, 74.75%, respectively) were not significantly different from the values in the retroperitoneal group (255.83 min, 141.67 mL, 24.5 mg, 22.36 hours, 3.6 days, 76.91%). We found no significant difference in the mean operative times for the first and second six cases in either group. CONCLUSION: In the initial experience and comparison of hand-assisted and retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy, we found no significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss, narcotic usage, hours to oral intake, hospital stay, or activity level at 2 weeks postoperatively. A randomized trial is under way at our institution.
Adult↗
A novel endoscopic approach towards resection of the distal ureter with surrounding bladder cuff during hand assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Humans↗
Uropathogenic Escherichia coli potentiates type 1 pilus-induced apoptosis by suppressing NF-kappaB.
Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common inflammatory diseases. Acute UTIs are typically caused by type 1-piliated Escherichia coli and result in urothelial apoptosis, local cytokine release, and neutrophil infiltration. To examine the urothelial apoptotic response, a human urothelial cell line was incubated with various E. coli isolates and was then characterized by flow cytometry. Uropathogenic E. coli (UPEC) induced rapid urothelial apoptosis that was strictly dependent upon interactions mediated by type 1 pili. Interestingly, nonpathogenic HB101 E. coli expressing type 1 pili induced apoptosis at approximately 50% of the level induced by UPEC, suggesting that pathogenic strains contribute to apoptosis by pilus-independent mechanisms. Consistent with this possibility, UPEC blocked activity of an NF-kappaB-dependent reporter in response to inflammatory stimuli, yet this effect was independent of functional type 1 pili and was not mediated by laboratory strains of E. coli. UPEC suppressed NF-kappaB by stabilizing IkappaBalpha, and UPEC rapidly altered cellular signaling pathways. Finally, blocking NF-kappaB activity increased the level of piliated HB101-induced apoptosis to the level of apoptosis induced by UPEC. These results suggest that UPEC blocks NF-kappaB and thereby enhances type 1 pili-induced apoptosis as a component of the uropathogenic program.
Apoptosis↗