Tartismali olgu

[No abstract available

Effects of chronic boron exposure on semen profile

The possible changes in semen quality were studied in men living in a boron mining area. The subjects in the boron group had exposure to boron at an average level of 6.5 mg/day, as determined by urinary analysis. The results obtained by the boron group were compared to those obtained for the control group whose subjects were living in the same geographical area but away from the boron region; average exposure level was 1.4 mg/day for this group. The semen samples were analyzed according to the recommendations of the World Health Organization. Boron levels were established in the water samples obtained from various locations in the study region. In the boron mining fields where the subjects in the boron group live, water samples contained boron in the range of 1.4-6.5 mg/L, while the values were <0.01 mg/L for the water samples obtained from the region where the subjects of the control group reside. No negative effects were found in the sperm samples obtained from the subjects of the boron group. © 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.2005/AR/GE 6Acknowledgements This research has been supported by the National Boron Institute (BOREN), Turkey through the grant 2005/AR/GE 6. We would like to express our appreciation to Dr. Zafer Ayhan of Atalar Laboratory and Güven Laboratory, Balıkesir for his help in the semen analyses

A survey of patient preparation and technique of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A multicenter study og urooncological association [Ultrasonografi k?lavuzlugunda yap?lan prostat biyopsisinde hasta haz?rl?g? ve teknik anketi: Üroonkoloji dernegi çcok merkezli çal?şmas?]

Introduction: Ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy is the standard method for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The aim of the present survey is to assess the variability in patient preparation and technique of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy among Turkish Urologists. Materials and Methods: In July 2004, a questionnaire was sent out to e-mail addresses of the members of Urooncological Association, asking about the details of prostate biopsy protocol of the members. The survey consisted of multiple choice questions about the patient preparation and prostate biopsy technique. Responses were acquired via e-mail and analyzed in detail. Results: Thirty two urologists from 24 centers responded. The biopsy procedure was performed by the urologist only in 54.16% of the centers, both urologist and radiologist in 37.5%, and radiologist only in 8.33%. Transrectal route was the most common method for ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. A half of the responders performed biopsy when PSA was greater than 4 ng/ml. All of the centers administered antibiotic and a half of them used enema before the procedure. Approximately 37% of responders did not administer any type of analgesia, but 29.1% of all responders administered a periprostatic nerve block for reducing pain during the procedure. Most urologists obtained 10 or 12 biopsy cores and only 20.8% of them obtained routine transitional zone biopsy during the initial biopsy session. Conclusion: This survey demonstrated that patient preparation and technique of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy is not standardized among Turkish Urologists, and a guideline on prostate biopsy is needed