Search

Objective: To assess the prevalence and the characteristics of pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) in women with endometriosis., Methods: This is a methodological paper that describes the 'Endometriosis and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction' (EndoPFD) multicenter study protocol. It involves three sites: the University Hospital of Pisa, the San Raffaele Hospital of Milan and the Vanvitelli University Hospital of Naples. Women are recruited through web links and are asked whether they want to participate to the clinical evaluation or only to the web survey. The web survey gathers personal history, endometriosis history and symptoms, and performs a subjective evaluation of PFD through questionnaires: Urinary Distress Inventory 6, Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory 8, Wexner Scale for Fecal Incontinence, Wexner Constipation Scoring System, and Female Sexual Function Index. Those interested in the clinical evaluation will add to the questionnaires the following exams: gynecological and proctological exam, pelvic ultrasound, urodynamic test, and anorectal manometry., Preliminary Results: Recruitment for the web survey was completed. A total of 1,149 women signed the electronic consent, 329 were excluded due to inclusion/exclusion criteria; hence, 525 completed all the questionnaires (response rate of 64.02%). Recruitment for the clinical evaluation is ongoing., Discussion: This study protocol offers the possibility to define the prevalence of PFD in endometriosis patients with a subjective and an objective assessment of signs and symptoms. This may pave the way for changing the approach to patients with endometriosis. Moreover, it demonstrates the validity of the method used (online survey and recruitment) to reach a high number of patients.

Background: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a widespread and frustrating condition that affects millions of people worldwide, with severe consequences on patients' quality of life and health care systems' costs. Currently, the most severe cases of SUI are treated using implanted (and rather invasive) extraurethral artificial sphincters. The authors propose an innovative, minimally invasive endourethral device for the treatment of SUI. Methods: Ten patients with SUI were enrolled in three Italian centers and underwent device implantation. After 10, 30, 60, and 90 days, correct device position was confirmed by ultrasonography. Improvements in continence and quality of life were evaluated through a 24-hour pad-test, an International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnarie-Short Form (ICI-Q) and a custom checklist. The device was explanted after 90 days. Results: The proposed device was successfully implanted and explanted in 8 out of 10 patients. The results of the pad-test, ICI-Q, and custom checklist demonstrated remarkable improvements in continence (median improvement: 82% with respect to the initial condition) and quality of life (mean reduction of the impact of urine losses on the quality of life: 61%). No major pain or discomfort was reported. Conclusions: The results demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed endourethral artificial sphincter in addressing SUI. The proposed device was successfully implanted and explanted in a short time (∼10 minutes) without intrinsic side effects and without triggering pain or discomfort.

Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Introduction: The objective of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy, through the stone-free rate (SFR), as well as the costs, between retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), for 2-4 cm kidney stones., Material and Methods: We analysed the data relating to RIRS and PCNL performed in 3 reference centres for kidney stones, in the period between 1/2019 and 12/2021. The total number of procedures was 130 (63 RIRS and 67 PCNL). We defined SFR as the absence of lithiasic fragments or stones <3 mm. Results were compared between 2 groups depending on the stone size: 2-3 cm stones (group 1) and >3 cm stones (group 2)., Results: The duration of RIRS was 90 minutes for group 1 and 115 minutes for group 2, and for PCNL it was 135 minutes for group 1 and 145 minutes for group 2. RIRS had shorter duration with a significant difference in group 1 (p = 0.000014). SFR for RIRS was 78% for group 1 and 21% for group 2, and for PCNL it was 92% for group 1 and 81% for group 2. Therefore, there is a statistically significant difference, which is more evident for 3 cm and multiple stones (p = 0.0057 for group 1, p = 0.000146 for group 2). The difference in costs was estimated by calculating the expected costs for a single surgical procedure and the estimated cost per day for ordinary hospitalization., Conclusions: 2-4 cm stones can be safely treated with both RIRS and PCNL, but RIRS should not be chosen as an option for stones >3 cm, except in selected cases. PCNL remains the gold standard for the treatment of complex stones, especially for stones >3 cm. Risk of postoperative complications is higher in PCNL, even if this difference is not great. The costs associated with RIRS, even when recalculating with the need for new treatments, remain cheaper., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright by Polish Urological Association.)