The effectiveness of varicocele embolisation for the treatment of varicocele related orchalgia

PURPOSE: Orchalgia is a common problem with varicoceles however the association between varicocele embolisation for the treatment of varicocele related pain has not been widely investigated. We aim to investigate the effectiveness of varicocele embolisation for the treatment of orchalgia secondary to varicoceles; and to see if pre-embolisation pain scores can be used to predict treatment outcomes. METHODS: A prospectively collected database of patients undergoing varicocele embolisation for pain was analysed over a 10-year period. Pain scores were assessed with a 10-point visual analogue score. Analgesia requirements and satisfaction scores were assessed with questionnaires. RESULTS: Total of 96 cases. Median age was 34 years old. Median pain scores reduced significantly following embolisation (p < 0.001). 74% had reduced pain (30% of these had resolution of pain), 24% had no change in symptoms and 1% had worsening pain. Those with moderate or severe pain had a reduction of pain in 81 and 79% of cases respectively, however 64% of cases with mild pain did not experience any benefit. We also noted a reduction in analgesia requirements and a median satisfaction score of 8/10. CONCLUSION: Primary varicocele embolisation can successfully reduce varicocele related orchalgia. It works best in those with moderate or severe pain. The majority of patients with mild pain may not experience any benefit so should be counseled appropriately. The classification of patients into those with mild, moderate or severe symptoms prior to embolisation should be done, so robust consenting can be performed

Urologist led one-stop testicular clinic:the UK 'gold standard'

Prompt diagnosis and early treatment for testicular cancer is vital. To help with this a one-stop, urologist run, testicular clinic with testicular ultrasound scanning as an integral part of the clinic format was introduced to investigate patients in an efficient and timely manner. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and efficiency of running a one-stop testicular clinic. A prospectively collected electronic database of all patients attending a one-stop testicular clinic at a busy university hospital was interrogated over a 6-year period. Only new referral males, above the age of 15 years old were included. Case notes were reviewed retrospectively. A total of 1757 patients were found with a median age of 36. 6.3 % had a suspicious ultrasound scan and overall 5.6 % were found to have malignancy histologically. In addition a significant proportion of men with a history of testicular maldescent went on to develop testicular cancer (p &lt; 0.01). Median time from referral to clinic and clinic to orchidectomy for suspected testicular cancers was 9 and 5 days respectively (95 % CI). Some of the benefits of a urologist run one-stop testicular clinic include: timely diagnosis and treatment, early reassurance with normal investigations, the discovery of clinically unsuspecting malignancy and the increase in teaching opportunities. These collective benefits must improve patient experience and benefit the department as a whole. A urologist led one-stop testicular clinic should be regarded as the gold standard.</p

The detection and upgrade rates of prostate adenocarcinoma following transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy - a tertiary referral centre experience

INTRODUCTION: We aim to present transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy (template biopsy) outcomes at a tertiary referral centre. Furthermore, to identify the detection rate of prostate cancer in those with a previous negative transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy and the upgrade rate of those on active surveillance for Gleason 3 + 3 = 6 prostate adenocarcinoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of 200 consecutive men who underwent template biopsy over a 22-month period in a tertiary referral centre, using a standard 24 region template prostate biopsy technique. Indications and histology results, as well as complications, were recorded. RESULTS: Median age was 67 years and median PSA was 10 ng/mL. Overall detection rate was 47%. 39.5% of cases with previous negative transrectal biopsies were found to have prostate adenocarcinoma. 47.5% of cases on active surveillance for Gleason 3 + 3 = 6 prostate adenocarcinoma were upgraded. The most frequent complication was acute urinary retention at a rate of 12.5%, however, the use of a single prophylactic dose of tamsulosin was found to be beneficial, with 13 cases needed to treat to prevent one episode. CONCLUSIONS: Template biopsies are safe and efficacious with an overall detection rate of 47% in the present series. Due to the high detection rate, one must consider template biopsy following one negative transrectal biopsy where there is persistent clinical suspicion. Furthermore, those considering active surveillance for Gleason 3 + 3 = 6 disease should be offered template biopsy to confirm the grade of their disease

Impact of COVID-19 on the management and outcomes of ureteric stones in the UK: a multicentre retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if management of ureteric stones in the UK changed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and whether this affected patient outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective study of adults with computed tomography-confirmed ureteric stone disease at 39 UK hospitals during a pre-pandemic period (23/3/2019-22/6/2019) and a period during the pandemic (the 3-month period after the first severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 case at individual sites). The primary outcome was success of primary treatment modality, defined as no further treatment required for the index ureteric stone. Our study protocol was published prior to data collection. RESULTS: A total of 3735 patients were included (pre-pandemic 1956 patients; pandemic 1779 patients). Stone size was similar between groups (P > 0.05). During the pandemic, patients had lower hospital admission rates (pre-pandemic 54.0% vs pandemic 46.5%, P < 0.001), shorter mean length of stay (4.1 vs 3.3 days, P = 0.02), and higher rates of use of medical expulsive therapy (17.4% vs 25.4%, P < 0.001). In patients who received interventional management (pre-pandemic 787 vs pandemic 685), rates of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (22.7% vs 34.1%, P < 0.001) and nephrostomy were higher (7.1% vs 10.5%, P = 0.03); and rates of ureteroscopy (57.2% vs 47.5%, P < 0.001), stent insertion (68.4% vs 54.6%, P < 0.001), and general anaesthetic (92.2% vs 76.2%, P < 0.001) were lower. There was no difference in success of primary treatment modality between patient cohorts (pre-pandemic 73.8% vs pandemic 76.1%, P = 0.11), nor when patients were stratified by treatment modality or stone size. Rates of operative complications, 30-day mortality, and re-admission and renal function at 6 months did not differ between the data collection periods. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there were lower admission rates and fewer invasive procedures performed. Despite this, there were no differences in treatment success or outcomes. Our findings indicate that clinicians can safely adopt management strategies developed during the pandemic to treat more patients conservatively and in the community