Search

Copyright of Proges en Urologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Proges en Urologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Proges en Urologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Proges en Urologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Proges en Urologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Proges en Urologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: According to the European guidelines, any urological surgery breaching the mucosa requires preoperative screening and antibiotic treatment of any asymptomatic bacteriuria (ABU)., Methods: The aim of this study was to determine whether the preoperative antibiotic treatment duration of ABU in urological surgery impact postoperative infectious complications. National multicenter, retrospective study including all consecutive patients screened for ABU before urologic surgery in 10 centers from 1 st April 2019 to April 2023. The primary endpoint was all postoperative infectious complications occurring within 30 days after surgery. Short antibiotic treatment (SAT) of ABU was defined by 5- day regimen or less. Long antibiotic treatment (LAT) was defined by duration longer than 5 days., Results: Among the 2389 patients included, 839 (35.1%) patients had positive urine culture (UC), of whom 546 (65%) had positive mono or bimicrobial UC and 292 (34.8%) polymicrobial UC. There were 106 (4.4%) postoperative infectious complications occurring within 30 days including 62 (58.5%) in the positive UC group. In the positive UC group, 336 (40%) had received SAT, 261 (31.1%) LAT and 231 (27.5%) had not received any treatment. The 30-day surgery-related infection rates were 8.3%, 6.1% and 7.36% respectively. There was no statistical difference between SAT versus LAT in the univariate analysis (P=0.6) or in the multivariate analysis OR 1.97 [0.37, 1.86] (P=0.06)., Conclusions: Our results found no association between antibiotic treatment duration and urinary infectious complication among patients with preoperative ABU who undergo urological surgery. These results need a RCT to be confirmed.

Objectives: To assess laser-tissue interactions through ablation, coagulation, and carbonisation characteristics in a non-perfused porcine kidney model between three pulsed lasers: holmium (Ho): yttrium-aluminium-garnet (YAG), thulium fiber laser (TFL), and pulsed thulium (p-Tm):YAG., Materials and Methods: A 150-W Ho:YAG, a 60-W TFL, and a 100-W p-Tm:YAG lasers were compared. The laser settings that can be set identically between the three lasers and be clinically relevant for prostate laser enucleation were identified and used on fresh, unfrozen porcine kidneys. Laser incisions were performed using stripped laser fibers of 365 and 550 μm, set at distances of 0 and 1 mm from the tissue surface at a constant speed of 2 mm/s. Histological analysis evaluated shape, depth, width of the incision, axial coagulation depth, and presence of carbonisation., Results: Incision depths, widths, and coagulation zones were greater with Ho:YAG and p-Tm:YAG lasers than TFL. Although no carbonisation was found with the Ho:YAG and p-Tm:YAG lasers, it was common with TFL, especially at high frequencies. The shapes of the incisions and coagulation zones were more regular and homogeneous with the p-Tm:YAG laser and TFL than with Ho:YAG laser. Regardless of the laser used, short pulse durations resulted in deeper incisions than long pulse durations. Concerning the distance, we found that to be effective, TFL had to be used in contact with the tissue. Finally, 365-μm fibers resulted in deeper incisions, while 550-μm fibers led to wider incisions and larger coagulation zones., Conclusion: Histological analysis revealed greater tissue penetration with the p-Tm:YAG laser compared to the TFL, while remaining less than with Ho:YAG. Its coagulation properties seem interesting insofar as it provides homogeneous coagulation without carbonisation, while incisions remained uniform without tissue laceration. Thus, the p-Tm:YAG laser appears to be an effective alternative to Ho:YAG and TFL lasers in prostate surgery., (© 2024 BJU International.)