PubMed · 14880710
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A DE LA PENA, J REIG. 1951. Phleboliths.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14880710/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The association of testicular microlithiasis with testicular tumour and the need for follow-up remain largely unclear. METHODS: We conducted a national questionnaire survey involving consultant BAUS members (BAUS is the official national organisation (like the AUA in USA) of the practising urologists in the UK and Ireland), to provide a snapshot of current attitudes towards investigation and surveillance of patients with testicular microlithiasis. RESULTS: Of the 464 questionnaires sent to the BAUS membership, 263(57%) were returned. 251 returns (12 were incomplete) were analysed, of whom 173(69%) do and 78(31%) do not follow-up testicular microlithiasis. Of the 173 who do follow-up, 119(69%) follow-up all patients while 54(31%) follow-up only a selected group of patients. 172 of 173 use ultra sound scan while 27(16%) check tumour makers. 10(6%) arrange ultrasound scan every six months, 151(88%) annually while 10(6%) at longer intervals. 66(38%) intend to follow-up these patients for life while, 80(47%) until 55 years of age and 26(15%) for up to 5 years. 173(68.9%) believe testicular microlithiasis is associated with CIS in < 1%, 53(21%) think it is between 1&10% while 7(3%) believe it is > 10%. 109(43%) believe those patients who develop a tumour, will have survival benefit with follow-up while 142(57%) do not. Interestingly, 66(38%) who follow-up these patients do not think there is a survival benefit. CONCLUSION: There is significant variability in how patients with testicular microlithiasis are followed-up. However a majority of consultant urologists nationally, believe surveillance of this patient group confers no survival benefit. There is a clear need to clarify this issue in order to recommend a coherent surveillance policy.
OBJECTIVE: To review the incidence, risk factors, and treatment options of intraoperative and postoperative complications of stone basketing in urology with emphasis on certain principles that must be upheld to prevent those complications. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the MEDLINE database on stone basketing between 1970 and 2005. RESULTS: Iatrogenic trauma due to retrieval of a stone is well known but the exact incidence is difficult to ascertain. Rarely, stone basketing can cause major trauma to the ureter, such as avulsion or intussusception, requiring open or laparoscopic intervention for ureteral continuity restoration. Mucosal abrasion, ureteral perforation, and stricture formation have also been described as complications of stone basketing. Occasionally, the engaged or broken basket can provoke anxiety even for experienced urologists. Factors that increase the risk of complications, strategies for repair, and techniques for prevention are discussed extensively. CONCLUSION: Infrequent, surgical misadventures during stone basketing can occur and must be treated appropriately. Careful attention to instrument selection and surgical techniques and awareness of risk factors and type and site of potential injury are essential to reduce these complications.
OBJECTIVE: We review the pathophysiology and possible prevention measures of complications after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). METHODS: A literature search was performed with the Medline database on ESWL between 1980 and 2004. RESULTS: ESWL application has been intuitively connected to complications. These are related mostly to residual stone fragments, infections, and effects on tissues such as urinary, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, genital, and reproductive systems. Recognition of ESWL limitations, use of alternative therapies, correction of pre-existing renal or systemic disease, treatment of urinary tract infection, use of prophylactic antibiotics, and improvement of ESWL efficacy are the most important measures of prevention. Decrease of shock wave number, rate and energy, use of two shock-wave tubes simultaneously, and delivery of two shock waves at carefully timed close intervals improve ESWL efficacy and safety. CONCLUSION: ESWL is a safe method to treat stones when proper indications are followed. The need for well-designed prospective randomised trials on aetiology and prevention of its complications arises through the literature review.