13 research outputs found

    Partial Nephrectomy A Comparison between Different Modalities

    Get PDF
    Kidney cancer, with 4% of all malignancies, is one of the most common malignancies occurring among in adults. In Saudi Arabia, kidney cancer comprises 2.3% of all cancers, and its incidence has increased by 33%. Partial nephrectomy (PN) is considered as the gold standard for T1 renal masses. In this retrospective study, we did a chart review for all patients who underwent PNs between April 2013 and February 2019. Data comprised pre-sentation, tumor size, type of procedure (open vs. laparoscopic vs. robotic), and intra- and post-operative complications. Chi-square, ANOVA, and cross-tabulation were done using SPSS software. P > 0.05 was considered significant. Approval was obtained from the institutional review board of King Abdullah International Medical Research Center. In all, 69 patients were identified: 26 (37.7%) males and 43 (62.3%) females, with mean age = 54.53 ± 13.21 years; mean body mass index = 32.36 ± 7.03, and mean tumor size = 3.7 ± 1.72 cm. In terms of presentation, most patients (50, 72.4%) presented incidentally as opposed to symptomatic presentation. Of these patients, 18 (26.1%) underwent open partial nephrectomy (OPN), 29 (42%) laparoscopic partial nephrec-tomy (LPN), and 22 (31.9%) robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). On comparing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) PN with OPN, we found that OPN had more blood loss and a longer hospital stay but a shorter operating room (OR) time. Results of PN irrespective of the procedure type, whether it was OPN, LPN, or RPN, were similar if performed by experienced surgeons. However, open procedures involved a higher blood loss, more operative time, and longer hospital stay when compared with minimally invasive techniques

    Trends in genitourinary cancer mortality in the United States: analysis of the CDC-WONDER database 1999–2020

    Get PDF
    IntroductionSociodemographic disparities in genitourinary cancer-related mortality have been insufficiently studied, particularly across multiple cancer types. This study aimed to investigate gender, racial, and geographic disparities in mortality rates for the most common genitourinary cancers in the United States.MethodsMortality data for prostate, bladder, kidney, and testicular cancers were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) WONDER database between 1999 and 2020. Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) were analyzed by year, gender, race, urban–rural status, and geographic region using a significance level of p < 0.05.ResultsOverall, AAMRs for prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer declined significantly, while testicular cancer-related mortality remained stable. Bladder and kidney cancer AAMRs were 3–4 times higher in males than females. Prostate cancer mortality was highest in black individuals/African Americans and began increasing after 2015. Bladder cancer mortality decreased significantly in White individuals, Black individuals, African Americans, and Asians/Pacific Islanders but remained stable in American Indian/Alaska Natives. Kidney cancer-related mortality was highest in White individuals but declined significantly in other races. Testicular cancer mortality increased significantly in White individuals but remained stable in Black individuals and African Americans. Genitourinary cancer mortality decreased in metropolitan areas but either increased (bladder and testicular cancer) or remained stable (kidney cancer) in non-metropolitan areas. Prostate and kidney cancer mortality was highest in the Midwest, bladder cancer in the South, and testicular cancer in the West.DiscussionSignificant sociodemographic disparities exist in the mortality trends of genitourinary cancers in the United States. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions and further research to address these disparities and improve outcomes for all populations affected by genitourinary cancers

    Assessment of lower calyceal single-access percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones: A single-surgeon and a single-center experience at KAMC, Riyadh

    No full text
    Introduction: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is still the mainstay and the treatment of choice for most complex renal stones. The success of PCNL is defined by achieving a stone-free rate (SFR). Lower calyceal access PCNL is established to be the safest percutaneous access to the renal system, but controversy is present when it comes to SFR in comparison to upper calyceal and middle calyceal accesses. Aim: We aim to prove that lower calyceal access PCNL is the safest PCNL access and has the same efficacy as upper calyceal access PCNL for staghorn stones. Methodology: All lower calyceal access PCNLs done from May 2012 to August 2017 were included in the study. Postoperative complications were reported using the modified Clavien Grading System. Results: Sixty-seven patients were included in the study. The mean age was found to be 49.39 years; most (36 [53.73%]) patients were male. The prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease was 40.91%, 47.76%, 37.31%, and 20.00%, respectively. The mean hospital stay was 7.9 days; mean operative time was 138.52 min. The mean staghorn stone burden was 476.34 mm2. About 80.59% (n = 54) of patients had complete stone resolution after the first session. Only 3 (4.47%) patients had complications and classified as Grade 2 on the modified Clavien Grading System and the remainder were classified as Grade 1, two patients needed postoperative blood transfusion, and one had a renal pelvis perforation. Conclusion: When it comes to safety and efficacy, the use of lower calyceal single-access PCNL has a very low complication rate compared to upper calyceal access PCNL, especially pneumothorax and bleeding

    Priapism for 10 days in a patient with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: a case report

    No full text
    ABSTRACT Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been linked to thromboembolic complications. Priapism has been reported only once in link to SARS-CoV2. Here we report the second case of priapism in a patient with SARS-CoV2; our case is unique in being that the patient had priapism for 10 days while being hospitalized. We discuss potential causes and possible prevention strategies. The patient was managed by aspiration and Phenylephrine injection and achieved detumescence and reported normal erection at 2 weeks follow-up.</jats:p

    Partial Nephrectomy A Comparison between Different Modalities

    No full text
    Kidney cancer, with 4% of all malignancies, is one of the most common malignancies occurring among in adults. In Saudi Arabia, kidney cancer comprises 2.3% of all cancers, and its incidence has increased by 33%. Partial nephrectomy (PN) is considered as the gold standard for T1 renal masses.In this retrospective study, we did a chart review for all patients who underwent PNs between April 2013 and February 2019. Data comprised pre-sentation, tumor size, type of procedure (open vs. laparoscopic vs. robotic), and intra- and post-operative complications. Chi-square, ANOVA, and cross-tabulation were done using SPSS software. P &gt; 0.05 was considered significant. Approval was obtained from the institutional review board of King Abdullah International Medical Research Center.In all, 69 patients were identified: 26 (37.7%) males and 43 (62.3%) females, with mean age = 54.53 ± 13.21 years; mean body mass index = 32.36 ± 7.03, and mean tumor size = 3.7 ± 1.72 cm. In terms of presentation, most patients (50, 72.4%) presented incidentally as opposed to symptomatic presentation. Of these patients, 18 (26.1%) underwent open partial nephrectomy (OPN), 29 (42%) laparoscopic partial nephrec-tomy (LPN), and 22 (31.9%) robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). On comparing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) PN with OPN, we found that OPN had more blood loss and a longer hospital stay but a shorter operating room (OR) time.Results of PN irrespective of the procedure type, whether it was OPN, LPN, or RPN, were similar if performed by experienced surgeons. However, open procedures involved a higher blood loss, more operative time, and longer hospital stay when compared with minimally invasive techniques.</jats:p
    corecore