Search

Bladder stones (BS) are still endemic in children in developing nations and account for a high volume of paediatric urology workload in these areas. The aim of this systematic review is to comparatively assess the benefits and risks of minimally invasive and open surgical interventions for the treatment of bladder stones in children.This systematic review was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Guidance. Database searches (January 1970- March 2021) were screened, abstracted, and assessed for risk of bias for comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRSs) with10 patients per group. Open cystolithotomy (CL), transurethral cystolithotripsy (TUCL), percutaneous cystolithotripsy (PCCL), extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and laparoscopic cystolithotomy (LapCL) were evaluated.In total, 3040 abstracts were screened, and 8 studies were included. There were 7 retrospective non-randomised studies (NRS's) and 1 quasi-RCT with 1034 eligible patients (CL: n=637, TUCL: n=196, PCCL: n=138, ESWL: n=63, LapCL n=0). Stone free rate (SFR) was given in 7 studies and measured 100%, 86.6%-100%, and 100% for CL, TUCL and PCCL respectively. CL was associated with a longer duration of inpatient stay than PCCL and TUCL (p0.05). One NRS showed that SFR was significantly lower after 1 session with outpatient ESWL (47.6%) compared to TUCL (93.5%) and CL (100%) (p0.01 and p0.01 respectively). One RCT compared TUCL with laser versus TUCL with pneumatic lithotripsy and found that procedure duration was shorter with laser for stones1.5cm (n=25, p=0.04).In conclusion, CL, TUCL and PCCL have comparable SFRs but ESWL is less effective for treating stones in paediatric patients. CL has the longest duration of inpatient stay. Information gathered from this systematic review will enable paediatric urologists to comparatively assess the risks and benefits of all urological modalities when considering surgical intervention for bladder stones.

Objectives To describe our experience of all patients presenting to a tertiary referral centre over a 3 year time period with blunt scrotal trauma and to describe a methodical approach for managing this group of patients. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) of a level 1 trauma centre with blunt scrotal trauma from 2010 to 2013 inclusive. Inclusion criteria included a recent history of blunt scrotal trauma with associated pain and/or swelling of the affected testis on clinical examination. Results Twenty-seven male patients with a median age of 19 (range 8–65) years were included and all but 1 patient underwent scrotal ultrasonography upon presentation. Sixteen patients (59%) presented with scrotal trauma secondary to a sports related injury. Fifteen patients were managed conservatively and of the 12 who underwent urgent exploration 9 had a testicular rupture, including 1 who had an emergency orchidectomy due to a completely shattered testis. Four patients had >30% of the testis replaced by necrotic tissue/haematoma; of which 2 ultimately underwent orchidectomy and insertion of testicular prosthesis. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that the necessity for scrotal protection in sports that predispose to scrotal trauma should be reviewed. We also demonstrate the importance of scrotal ultrasonography for determining an appropriate management strategy (i.e. conservative versus surgical treatment) in this young patient cohort.