Search

Objectives: To describe the natural history of AML, the clinical results and the need for treatment during long-term follow-up of renal AML., Methods: Retrospective study of patients diagnosed with AML by computed tomography or nuclear magnetic resonance between 2001 and 2019, with at least two follow-up images. Clinical and imaging variables, need for intervention, complications and follow-up time were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0., Results: 111 patients and 145 AML were included. The median follow-up was 6.17 years (range 0.7-18.1, IQR 11.8-12.2). The median tumor size at diagnosis was 13 mm (IQR 7.5-30), with 24 (16.4%) being ≥ 4 cm. Most presented as an incidental finding (85.5%); in 3 (2.1%) cases, the presentation was as a spontaneous retroperitoneal hematoma. The main indication for intervention was size ≥ 4 cm in 50%. Eighteen (12%) patients received a first intervention, being urgent in 3. Embolization was performed in 15 cases and partial nephrectomy in 3. The need for reintervention was recorded in five: two underwent partial nephrectomy and two total nephrectomy; one patient required a new urgent embolization. Of the non-operated patients, 43% decreased in size or did not change, while 57% increased, with the median annual growth being 0.13 mm (IQR - 0.11 to 0.73). There were no differences in the median growth in tumors measuring ≥ 4 cm (0.16 mm) at diagnosis vs. < 4 cm (0.13 mm) (p = 0.9)., Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that AML typically demonstrate a slow-progressing clinical course during long-term follow-up. Moreover, our observations, which cast doubt on tumor size as a reliable predictor of adverse clinical outcomes, advocate for a less intensive monitoring strategy in both monitoring frequency and choice of imaging modality., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

In a subset analysis of data from a 6-month, multicenter, non-interventional study, we compared change in symptoms and quality of life (QoL), and treatment tolerability, in men with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) receiving tamsulosin (TAM, 0.4 mg/day) or the hexanic extract of Serenoa repens (HESr, 320 mg/day) as monotherapy. Symptoms and QoL were assessed using the IPSS and BII questionnaires, respectively. Patients in the treatment groups were matched using two statistical approaches (iterative and propensity score matching). Within the iterative matching approach, data was available from a total of 737 patients (353 TAM, 384 HESr). After 6 months, IPSS scores improved by a mean (SD) of 5.0 (4.3) points in the TAM group and 4.5 (4.7) points in the HESr group (p = 0.117, not significant). Improvements in QoL were equivalent in the two groups. TAM patients reported significantly more adverse effects than HESr patients (14.7% vs 2.1%; p < 0.001), particularly ejaculation dysfunction and orthostatic hypotension. These results show that HESr is a valid treatment option for men with moderate/severe LUTS/BPH; improvements in urinary symptoms and QoL were similar to those observed for tamsulosin, but with considerably fewer adverse effects., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Offer some recommendations or guidelines during the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of diagnosis, treatment and follow-upin the field of Reconstructive Urology. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The document is based on the evidence on SARS/Cov-2 and the authors' experience in managing COVID-19 in their institutions, including specialists from Andalusia, Madrid, Cantabria,the Valencian Community and Catalonia. A web and PubMed search was performed using "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19", "COVID-19 Urology", "COVID19 urology complications", "COVID-19 reconstructive surgery".A narrative review of the literature was carried out (5/17/2020) and after the nominal group technique modified due to the extraordinary restrictions, a first draft was made to unify criteria and reach a quick consensus. Finally, a definitive version was made, agreed by all the authors (5/22/2020). RESULTS: The authors defined the following surgical priorities for Urological Reconstructive Surgery: Emergency/Urgency (life-threatening or emergencies still in anormal situation), Elective Urgency/High priority (potentially dangerous pathology if postponed for more than 1month), Elective Surgery/Intermediate priority (pathology with little probability of being dangerous but it is recommended not to delay more than 6 months), Delayed surgery/Low priority (non-dangerous pathology if it is postponed for more than 6 months). According to this classification, the Working Group agreed on the distribution of the different surgical scenarios of Reconstructive Urology. In addition, consensus was reached on recommendations regarding the diagnosis and follow-up of pathology in the field of Reconstructive Urology. CONCLUSIONS: Tools should be implemented to facilitate the gathering of the medical visit and diagnostic tests. Redistribution of surgical procedures based on priority degrees is necessary during the pandemic and transition period. The use of telemedicine is essential forfollow-up, by computer, telephone or videoconference.