1,721,185 research outputs found

    Chlamydia trachomatis versus common uropathogens as a cause of chronic bacterial prostatitis: is there any difference? Results of a prospective parallel cohort study.

    Full text link
    Purpose: The role of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) infection in chronic bacterial prostatitis (CBP) is well known. What is unclear is whether there are any differences in the course or clinical outcome of the disease when the cause is CT or other uropathogens. Materials and Methods: A series of 311 patients affected by CBP due to CT (cohort A) was compared with a group of 524 patients affected by CBP caused by common uropathogen bacteria (cohort B). All participants completed the following questionnaires: National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index, International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function-15 erectile function domain (IIEF-15-EFD), Premature Ejaculation Diagnostic Tool (PEDT), and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey. All patients were followed with clinical and microbiological evaluations. Results: After a mean follow-up time of 42.3 months, the number of symptomatic episodes was significantly higher in patients in cohort A than in cohort B (4.1±1.1 vs. 2.8±0.8, p<0.001), and the mean time to first symptomatic recurrence was shorter in cohort A than in cohort B (3.3±2.3 months vs. 5.7±1.9 months, p<0.001). Moreover, scores on the SF-36 tool were significantly lower in cohort A (96.5±1.0 vs. 99.7±1.9, p<0.001) at the first symptomatic recurrence. Cohort A also showed significantly lower scores on the IIEF-15-EFD and PEDT questionnaires at the end of the follow-up period (26.8±2.9 vs. 27.3±3.3, p=0.02 and 11.5±2.3 vs. 4.5±2.8, p<0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Patients affected by CBP due to CT infection have a higher number of symptomatic recurrences with a more severe impact on quality of life

    A case series of patients who underwent laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy with the simultaneous implant of a penile prosthesis: focus on penile lenght preservation

    Full text link
    Purpose: There are many grey areas in the field of penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy (RP). The preservation of the full dimensions of the penis is an important consideration for improving patients’ compliance for the treatment. We present the first case series of patients treated by laparoscopic extraperitoneal RP and simultaneous penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) in order to preserve the full length of the penis and to improve patients’ satisfaction. Materials and Methods: From June 2013 to June 2014, 10 patients underwent simultaneous PPI (with an AMS InhibiZone prosthesis) and RP. Patients were evaluated by means of urological visits, questionnaires, and objective measurements before surgery, at discharge from the hospital, on postoperative days 21 to 28, each 3 months for the first year, and each 6 months thereafter. The main outcome measures were biochemical recurrence-free rate, penile length, and quality of life. Results: Ten patients (mean age of 61 years; completed the study follow-up period (median, 32.2 months). No difference was found between the time of surgery and the 2-year follow-up evaluation in terms of penile length. The pre-surgery 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) median score was 97. Patients were satisfied with their penile implants, and couples’ level of sexual satisfaction was rated median 8. The median postoperative SF-36 score was 99 at 3 months follow-up. Conclusions: Laparoscopic extraperitoneal RP surgery with simultaneous PPI placement seems to be an interesting possibility to propose to motivated patients for preserving the length of the penis and improving their satisfaction

    How to use antimicrobial prophylaxis in urological procedures

    Full text link
    Antimicrobial prophylaxis is effective in a wide range of urological procedures and has contributed to reduce the rate of postoperative infectious complications [1]. Adherence to European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces antimicrobial usage without increasing postoperative infection rates, lowers the prevalence of resistant uropathogens, and saves costs [2]. Nevertheless, adherence to EAU guidelines is not optimal. Antimicrobials are used for clean procedures without evidence and the types of antimicrobials used are not according to guidelines recommendations [3]. Also, antimi- crobial prophylaxis is often extended beyond the recom- mended 24-h period with important consequences such as appearance of multi-resistant organisms, including strains resistant to newer agents, worsened clinical outcome, and increased treatment costs [2]. Patients as well as the hospital ecology are unnecessary exposed to broad-spectrum anti- microbials and their adverse effects. It is of outmost importance to preserve the arsenal of effective antimicrobials at a hospital level and even beyond the hospital. A revision of clinical practice in terms of antimicrobial prophylaxis is urgently needed. The correct use of antimicrobial prophy- laxis in urological procedures rests on three pillars: (1) knowledge of the local pathogen profile and antimicrobial resistance, (2) careful evaluation of patient-related risk factors for the development of infectious complications after urological procedures, and (3) adherence to EAU guidelines on urological infections. This clinical consultation guide aims to give a short update on evidence-based recommendations
    corecore