Search

Stone surgery is one of oldest surgical practices undertaken by man. Hippocrates refused to let his followers "cut for the stone" and it was only in February 1980, when the first human trial of shock wave therapy on a renal stone was performed with success that a new era in minimally invasive treatment (surgery) for stones was opened up and this condemnation was finally resolved in the Hippocratic Oath. Endoscopy, using natural orifices, supported by anaesthesia, incremented by technology and with access to all points along the urinary tract, began by competing with ESWL, but is now the treatment of choice in most cases. As far as we know humans have always had stones. First, lithiasis was endemic bladder stones in children, now it is renal in general. Added to this a number of well-known risk factors, a rapid increase in obesity in the population, as well as bariatric surgery for its treatment, are causing an increase in the prevalence and recurrence of lithiasis everywhere. A short history of the advances made with the introduction and development of the ureteroscope, along with auxiliary devices, will show why this is the preferred technique at the moment for treating lithiasis in general and for treating stones in pregnant women, children and the obese in particular. Being a minimally invasive surgery, with a low morbidity and a very high efficiency and stonefree rate, has become established as a clear future technique for both adults and children. This development is not only due to technological advancements, but also to the routine use of the Holmium: YAG LASER for intracorporeal lithotripsy, capable of destroying any stone regardless of its composition or location, surpassing the ability of any other lithotripter. It is also due to the development of devices that allow access to the ureter and all parts of the kidney, as well as auxiliary aids to assist in the handling of stones during treatment. New LASERs, robotic control of the fdURS and digital imaging, as well as disposable devices, have had and, indeed, continue to have a unique impact on future development in this field. However, success will continue to depend on the careful choice of fURS, energy source and ancillary instruments obtained by the urologist during both real life and virtual training in human simulators.

Objective: Stone research is stagnant with minor clinical fall-out. We wonder whether this, in the ESWL era, depends only on ESWL and the consequent change in our clinical management habits, or is rather due to mistakes made by investigators. We feel that indeed we did and do make some: (1) the patients we are investigating may not be appropriate; and (2) we are missing to properly recognise disease heterogeneity., Conclusions: From the public health side most likely we are not investigating the right patients, and we probably need to address the large part of the problem, i.e. the rarely relapsing stone formers demanding 80% of all urological interventions. Although there is a consensus that urolithiasis is very heterogeneous, this position is presently under reconsideration. It is necessary to investigate the single or "occasional" stone former, and go back to the epidemiology and clinics with multicentre, prospective studies. Being a multifactorial disease, we will need to evaluate as many aspects as possible contemporaneously in the same patient. It is also necessary to "revisit" the disease in an unbiased manner, because its relationship with relevant aspects could be different than previously thought due to our incomplete knowledge of its pathogenesis and pathophysiology.

Background: The concept of estrogen withdrawal by an aromatase inhibitor in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) was assessed in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial., Methods: Two hundred and ninety-two patients with clinical symptoms of BPH were randomly allocated to one of the following treatments for 48 weeks: placebo or the selective aromatase inhibitor, atamestane, at a daily dose of 100 mg or 300 mg. Both doses of atamestane significantly reduced serum concentrations of estradiol and estrone, and produced a slight, dose-dependent, counter-regulatory increase in peripheral androgen concentration., Results: Clinical symptoms improved during treatment in all three groups. Even after 48 weeks, the effect of active treatment did not exceed the effect seen with placebo. Overall tolerance of 100 mg atamestane was excellent, but 300 mg showed a slightly increased incidence of side effects compared with placebo., Conclusions: The conclusion from this study is that the reduction in estrogen concentration using the selective aromatase inhibitor atamestane has no effect on clinically established BPH.