The role of antibiotics in the treatment of chronic prostatitis: A consensus statement

Practical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic prostatitis are presented. Chronic prostatitis is classified as chronic bacterial prostatitis (culture-positive) and chronic inflammatory prostatitis (culture-negative). If chronic bacterial prostatitis is suspected, based on relevant symptoms or recurrent UTIs, underlying urological conditions should be excluded by the following tests: rectal examination, midstream urine culture and residual urine. The diagnosis should be confirmed by the Meares and Stamey technique. Antibiotic therapy is recommended for acute exacerbations of chronic prostatitis, chronic bacterial prostatitis and chronic inflammatory prostatitis, if there is clinical, bacteriological or supporting immunological evidence of prostate infection. Unless a patient presents with fever, antibiotic treatment should not be initiated immediately except in cases of acute prostatitis or acute episodes in a patient with chronic bacterial prostatitis. The work-up, with the appropriate investigations should be done first, within a reasonable time period which, preferably, should not be longer than 1 week. During this period, nonspecific treatment, such as appropriate analgesia to relieve symptoms, should be given. The minimum duration of antibiotic treatment should be 2-4 weeks. If there is no improvement in symptoms, treatment should be stopped and reconsidered. However, if there is improvement, it should be continued for at least a further 2-4 weeks to achieve clinical cure and, hopefully, eradication of the causative pathogen. Antibiotic treatment should not be given for 6-8 weeks without an appraisal of its effectiveness. Currently used antibiotics are reviewed. Of these, the fluoroquinolones ofloxacin and ciprofloxacin are recommended because of their favourable antibacterial spectrum and pharmacokinetic profile. A number of clinical trials are recommended and a standard study design is proposed to help resolve some outstanding issues

Is it always necessary to treat a ureteropelvic junction syndrome?

The term ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction covers different morbid entities, and the old aphorism, "A UPJ is not a UPJ" remains true. Hydronephrosis is readily seen on antenatal ultrasonography but does not necessarily imply obstruction. Although most cases will resolve spontaneously, the probability of a significant pathology is related to the degree of pyelectasis, as seen on the third trimester study. Criteria of obstruction are difficult to define with precision, but two that are well-accepted are size of the renal pelvis (> 15 mm) and relative renal function, as determined by adequate isotopic studies. A new therapeutic standard has been established, and minimally invasive surgery has finally dethroned its open rival. Possibly facilitated by robotic assistance, laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty is the present gold standard, albeit endopyelotomy remains the least invasive with similar results in carefully selected patients