Indicaciones y resultados del tratamiento de litiasis renal única asintomática menor de 10mm en adultos

ResumenIntroducciónNo existe evidencia de primer orden que permita emitir recomendaciones inapelables cuando se identifican litos únicos de pequeño tamaño, ya sea en pacientes asintomáticos o como litos residuales después de algún procedimiento invasivo.ObjetivoDescribir la evidencia disponible sobre el pronóstico y tratamiento de litos únicos renales<10mm.MétodosRevisión retrospectiva que incluyó las bases de datos PubMed, MEDLINE, IMBIOMED.ResultadosSe describe el tratamiento para 2 grupos: 1) litiasis renal única<10mm asintomática como hallazgo incidental o por escrutinio, y 2) litiasis renal residual única<10mm después de intervención terapéutica.ConclusionesLos autores concluyen y recomiendan el tratamiento de litos renales asintomáticos siempre que tengan un diámetro≥5mm. Aquellos de menor tamaño deben ser vigilados al menos anualmente previa discusión con el paciente sobre el riesgo de eventos futuros.AbstractIntroductionAt present there is not enough evidence to support final recommendations when small, single kidney stones are identified, either in asymptomatic patients or as residual stone fragments after an invasive procedure.AimTo describe the available evidence in relation to the prognosis and treatment of single kidney stones <10mm.MethodsA retrospective review was carried out utilizing the PubMed, MEDLINE, and IMBIOMED databases.ResultsThe collected information was organized into 2 groups: 1) single asymptomatic kidney stones <10mm as an incidental finding or identified through screening, and 2) single residual kidney stones <10mm after a therapeutic intervention.ConclusionsThe authors recommend treating asymptomatic kidney stones that have a diameter ≥5mm. Smaller stones should be under yearly surveillance once the patient has been informed about the risk for future events

PCUMex survey: Controversies in the management of prostate cancer among Mexican urologists

AbstractBackgroundProstate cancer is the first cause of mortality related to malignancy in Mexican men. Common clinical practice has to be evaluated in order to gain a picture of reality apart from the guidelines.AimTo analyze clinical practice among urologists in Mexico in relation to prostate cancer management and to compare the results with current recommendations and guidelines.MethodsWe collected the data from 600 urologists, members of the Sociedad Mexicana de Urología, who were invited by email to answer a survey on their usual decisions when managing controversial aspects of prostate cancer patients.ResultsQuinolones were the most common antibiotic used as prophylaxis in prostate biopsy (75.51%); 10–12 cores were taken in more than 65% of prostate biopsies; and 18.27% of the participants performed limited pelvic lymphadenectomy. Treatment results showed that 10.75% of the urologists surveyed preferred radical prostatectomy as monotherapy in high-risk patients with extraprostatic extension and 60.47% used complete androgen deprivation in metastatic prostate cancer.ConclusionsThere are many areas of opportunity for improvement in our current clinical practice for the management of patients with prostate cancer