Nonabsorbable polymer clip as a cause of chronic perineal pain after radical prostatectomy: Description of a case treated by transperineal approach

The occurrence of persistent perineal pain caused by surgical clips has rarely been described after radical prostatectomy (RP). We describe the case of a patient complaining of chronic perineal pain occurred soon after robotic RP, refractory to conventional medical therapy and exacerbated by the sitting position. Pain was related to a nonabsorbable polymer clip used to secure lateral pedicles. A transpeerineal approach was used to perform an hydrodissection of the rectovesical space at the level of the surgical clip combined with local injection of mepivacaine and betametasone. The patient experienced a clinically significant reduction of pain that remained stable at three months' follow-up

Seminal vesicle abscess causing unilateral hydroureteronephrosis: A case report

Seminal vesicle abscess (SVA) is a rare urologic entity. It mainly occurs in subjects with predisposing factors and may be associated with other urogenital infections. We describe the case of a diabetic subject with SVA associated with funiculitis, epididymitis and obstructive pyelonephritis. Treatment consisted of laparotomic surgical drainage of the abscess and ureteral stent placement

Incidentally discovered pelvic paraganglioma: A case report

Paragangliomas (PGL) are rare neuroendocrine tumors of the autonomic nervous system originating from paraganglia. Although PGL may arise at any site where physiologic paraganglionic tissue exists, the localization in the small pelvis is extremely rare. PGL may be hormonally active and release surplus catecholamines into the blood or inactive. The asymptomatic cases pose a diagnostic dilemma. We describe the case of an asymptomatic PGL arising in the small pelvis sidewall presenting as an incidentally discovered asymptomatic mass in a male subject

Benign Prostatic Obstruction Relief in Patients with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Suggestive of Benign Prostatic Enlargement Undergoing Endoscopic Surgical Procedures or Therapy with Alpha-Blockers: A Review of Urodynamic Studies

<p><strong>Article full text</strong></p> <p><br> The full text of this article can be found <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-017-0504-0"><b>here</b>.</a><br> <br> <strong>Provide enhanced digital features for this article</strong><br> If you are an author of this publication and would like to provide additional enhanced digital features for your article then please contact <u>[email protected]</u>.<br> <br> The journal offers a range of additional features designed to increase visibility and readership. All features will be thoroughly peer reviewed to ensure the content is of the highest scientific standard and all features are marked as ‘peer reviewed’ to ensure readers are aware that the content has been reviewed to the same level as the articles they are being presented alongside. Moreover, all sponsorship and disclosure information is included to provide complete transparency and adherence to good publication practices. This ensures that however the content is reached the reader has a full understanding of its origin. No fees are charged for hosting additional open access content.<br> <br> Other enhanced features include, but are not limited to:<br> • Slide decks<br> • Videos and animations<br> • Audio abstracts<br> • Audio slides<u></u></p

Medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones: tamsulosin versus silodosin

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin and silodosin in the context of medical expulsive therapy (MET) of distal ureteric stones. Patients and methods: Observational data were collected retrospectively from patients who received silodosin (N = 50) or tamsulosin (N = 50) as MET from January 2012 to January 2013. Inclusion criteria were: patients aged ≥ 18 years with a single, unilateral, symptomatic, radiopaque ureteric stone of 10 mm or smaller in the largest dimension located between the lower border of the sacroiliac joint and the vesico-ureteric junction. Stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, number of pain episodes, need for analgesics use, incidence of side effects were compared. Results: Stone-expulsion rate in the silodosin and in the tamsulosin groups were 88% and 82%, respectively (p not significant). Mean expulsion times were 6.7 and 6.5 days in the silodosin and tamsulosin group, respectively (p not significant). Mean number of pain episodes were 1.6 and 1.7 in the silodosin and tamsulosin group, respectively (p not significant). The mean number of analgesic requirement was 0.84 and 0.9 for the silodosin and tamsulosin group, respectively (p not significant). Overall, incidence of side effects was similar in both groups. Patients taking silodosin experienced an higher incidence of retrograde ejaculation but a lower incidence of side effects related to peripheral vasodilation when compared to patients taking tamsulosin. Subgroup analysis demonstrated significantly lower mean expulsion times and pain episodes in patients with stones ≤ 5 mm in both groups. Conclusions: Tamsulosin and silodosin are equally effective as MET for distal ureteric stones sized 10 mm or smaller. MET with silodosin is associatd with a lower incidence of side effects related to peripheral vasodilation but an higher incidence of retrograde ejaculation when compared to tamsulosin