PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8589750

[Revascularization: light and shadow].

Abstract

Advances in the knowledge of penile haemodynamics make evidence of two fundamental mechanisms in the physiology of erection: 1) arterial vasodilatation; 2) blockage of venous outflow. Therefore peripheric vasculogenic erectile impotence presents two pathogenetic possibilities: 1) from insufficient arterial flow; 2) from increased venous outflow. It is therefore very important to make the correct diagnosis of the patient with erectile disturbances in order to determine an appropriate therapy. The following examinations are routine tests carried out at our Institution: NPT test, basal and dynamic Doppler-sonography, OOE-OME (evaluation of output obtaining and maintenance erection), basic and dynamic cavernosography, digital angiography, dynamic NMR. After an accurate diagnostic assessment medical treatment can begin, based essentially on the cavernous infusion of vasoactive drugs, in light forms; surgery is resorted to severe cases, or in cases of failure of medical therapy. Proposed operations may be divided into 3 groups: 1) arterio-cavernous by-pass; 2) arterio-arterial by-pass; 3) venous surgery. Since 1978 the successive experiences of the Authors in this field and the better knowledge of penile vascular structures have led to a standardization of the methods used, with partly original techniques (epigastro-dorsal antiflow and orthoflow double by-pass), which, with selective application, have raised the percentage of pulsing anastomoses at 18 months of 82%.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E Austoni, O Fenice, F Mantovani, F Colombo, E Patelli. 1995. [Revascularization: light and shadow].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8589750/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Describing patients' normal tissue reactions: concerning the possibility of individualising radiotherapy dose prescriptions based on potential predictive assays of normal tissue radiosensitivity. Steering Committee of the BioMed2 European Union Concerted Action Programme on the Development of Predictive Tests of Normal Tissue Response to Radiation Therapy.

Clinical radiotherapeutic doses are limited by the tolerance of normal tissues. Patients given a standard treatment exhibit a range of normal tissue reactions, and a better understanding of this individual variation might allow for individualisation of radiotherapeutic prescriptions, with consequent improvement in the therapeutic ratio. At present, there is no simple way to describe normal tissue reactions, which hampers communication between clinic and laboratory and between groups from different centres. There is also no method for comparing the severity of reactions in different normal tissues. This arises largely because there is no definition of a "normal" reaction, an "extreme" reaction or the particular term "over-reactor" (OR). This report proposes definitions for these terms, as well as a simple terminology for describing normal tissue reactions in patients having radiotherapy. The "normal" range represents the individual variation in normal tissue reactions amongst large numbers of patients treated in the same way which is within clinically acceptable limits. The term "OR" is applied to an individual whose reaction is more severe than the normal range but also implies that this forced a major change in the radiotherapeutic prescription or that the reactions were very severe or fatal. A "severe OR" would develop serious problems with a typical radical dose, while an "extreme OR" would have such difficulties at a much lower dose. To describe the normal range, a numerical scale is suggested, from 1 to 5, resistant to sensitive. The term "highly radiosensitive" (HR) is suggested for category 5. An "informal" relative scale, as suggested here, is quick and simple. It should allow comparison between different hospitals, compensate for differences in radiotherapeutic dose and technique and allow comparison of reactions between different anatomical sites. It should be adequate for discriminating patients at the extremes of the normal range from those at the centre. It is hoped that the definitions and terminology proposed here will aid communication in the field of predictive testing of normal tissue radiosensitivity.

Follow-Up Studies

Hemodynamic follow-up of cardiac allografts from poisoned donors.

BACKGROUND: The current shortage of donor organs, combined with an increasing demand for cardiac allografts, means that extended donor criteria are becoming more and more accepted. The use of cardiac allografts for transplantation from donors after acute poisoning is still under discussion; few data are currently available in the medical literature. We describe our experience with 19 orthotopic heart transplant recipients of organs from donors after acute intoxication with different agents. METHODS: Between March 1989 and December 1997, 883 orthotopic heart transplantations were performed at our transplant unit. Within this group, we accepted donor hearts after ethanol intoxication (n=1), benzodiazepine (n=1), alkylphosphate (E 605) in combination with beta-blocker intoxication (n=1), carbon monoxide poisoning (n=5), digitalis (n=1), digitalis/glibenclamide (n=1), chlormethiazole (n=1), propoxyphene (n=1), alkylphosphate (E 605) (n=1), insulin (n=2), neprobamate/ thiocyacide/flurazepam (n=1), paracetamol (n=1), carbamazepine (n=1), and cyanide (n=1) intoxication. At the time of organ explantation, hemodynamic data were available from all patients. RESULTS: Early mortality in this group was 11%; cumulative survival after 5 years was 74%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our limited experience, cardiac allografts from donors exposed to different kinds of poisons can be transplanted in selected cases. If the donor organ is not hemodynamically compromised, showing regular filling pressures on low or mild inotropic support just before explantation, and if there are no electrocardiographic changes in combination with elevation of the transaminases, cardiac allograft transplantation seems to be a safe and life-saving procedure.

Follow-Up Studies