Humphreys, Mitchell R.

AbstractObjectiveThe objective of this study is to determine if Aquablation therapy can maintain its effectiveness in treating men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with large‐volume (80–150 cc) prostates at 3 years.Subjects and MethodsOne hundred one men with moderate‐to‐severe BPH symptoms and prostate volumes between 80 and 150 cc were enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, international clinical trial in late 2017. Baseline, procedural, and follow‐up parameters were recorded at baseline and scheduled postoperative visits. IPSS, Qmax, and treatment failure are reported at 3 years.ResultsThe mean prostate volume was 107 cc (range 80–150). Mean IPSS improved from 23.2 at baseline to 6.5 at 3 years (16.3‐point improvement, p < 0.0001). Mean IPSS quality of life improved from 4.6 at baseline to 1.1 at 3 years (improvement of 3.4 points, p < 0.0001). Maximum urinary flow increased from 8.7 to 18.5 cc/s. At 3 year follow‐up, 6% of treated patients needed BPH medication and an additional 3% required surgical retreatment for LUTS.ConclusionsThree‐year follow‐up demonstrates a sustained symptom reduction response along with low irreversible complications to Aquablation in men with LUTS due to BPH and prostates of 80–150 cc. Current treatment options available for men with prostates of this size have similar efficacy outcomes but are burdened with high rates of irreversible complications. There are now numerous clinical studies with Aquablation used in various prostates sizes, and it should be offered as an option to men with LUTS due to BPH.

ABSTRACT Background Nephrolithiasis in allograft kidneys is rare, but this diagnosis may lead to allograft complications and patient morbidity. Previous studies that have evaluated nephrolithiasis posttransplant have focused on surgical stone management, with limited data on urine metabolic risk factors and the presence of stones after follow-up. Methods We retrospectively evaluated kidney transplant recipients who were diagnosed with transplant nephrolithiasis between 2009 and 2019. Computed tomography and ultrasound imaging were used to confirm stone presence. Results The incidence of allograft kidney stone formation was 0.86% of 6548 kidney transplant recipients. Of the 56 cases identified, 17 (30%) had a pretransplant history of nephrolithiasis. Only four (7%) patients received a known kidney stone at the time of allograft implantation. Of the 56 cases, 34 had a 24-h supersaturation study. The urine supersaturation study showed 32 patients (94%) had a urine citrate of &lt;450 mg excreted in 24 h (median 124.5 mg/24 h, reference range &gt;500 mg/24 h), along with 22 patients (61%) having a urine oxalate excretion of ≥30 mg in 24 h (median 34.4 mg/24 h, reference range &lt;30 mg/24 h). Calcium oxalate composition was most common (91% with &gt;1 supersaturation for calcium oxalate crystals), with normal median urine calcium levels (median urine calcium 103.5 mg/24 h, reference range &lt;200 mg/24 h). After a 4-year follow-up, 50% (n = 28) required surgical intervention and 43 (77%) patients continued to have evidence of transplant nephrolithiasis on imaging. Conclusions This is the largest study of transplant nephrolithiasis confirming that hypocitraturia and hyperoxaluria were the most significant urine metabolic risk factors associated with allograft nephrolithiasis and that hyperoxaluria was the most prevalent driver for calcium oxalate stone composition. Our study is first to show low stone-free rates at the last follow-up and a significant proportion requiring surgical intervention.

Familial hypomagnesemia with hypercalciuria and nephrocalcinosis (FHHNC) is a rare tubulopathy characterized by renal loss of calcium and magnesium leading to progressive renal failure. The disorder is caused by variants to the tight junction proteins claudin-16 and -19. While rare, this disorder causes a significant burden to patients based on its clinical manifestations of various electrolyte abnormalities, nephrocalcinosis, and early progression to renal failure. In this report we describe the diagnosis of a novel variant of CLDN16 which clinically presented with severe hypomagnesemia, hypocalcemia, nephrocalcinosis, and renal failure.

SAGE-Journals-Accessible-Video-Player 10.1089/vid.2020.0132.M1 sj-vid-1-vid-10.1089_vid.2020.0132

Objectives To compare the enucleation efficiency of Moses 2.0 with non‐Moses technology in patients undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). Patients and Methods A double‐blinded, randomised study of patients undergoing HoLEP at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, using the Lumenis Pulse™ 120H laser system. Patients were randomised to either right lobe enucleation using Moses 2.0 and left lobe enucleation using non‐Moses, or the opposite. The primary outcome was individual lobe enucleation efficiency. Secondary outcomes included individual lobe laser time, laser energy, individual enucleation and haemostasis laser energies, and fibre burn back. Two independent reviewers watched videos of the procedures and provided a subjective evaluation of the technologies. Results A total of 27 patients were included in the study. For the entire cohort, Moses 2.0 had less fibre degradation (3.5 vs 16.8 mm, P < 0.01) compared to non‐Moses. When HoLEP procedures were performed by an expert, Moses 2.0 resulted in shorter enucleation time (21 vs 36.7 min, P = 0.016) and higher enucleation efficiency (1.75 vs 1.05 g/min, P = 0.05) compared to non‐Moses. When HoLEP was performed by trainees, the Moses 2.0 cohort had a shorter haemostasis laser time (4.1 vs 9 min, P = 0.035) compared to the non‐Moses. Fibre degradation was lower with Moses 2.0 compared to non‐Moses for both experts and trainees. Moses 2.0 received a higher score than the standard technology for the incision sharpness, fibre control, tissue separation, tissue damage, haemostasis, visibility, and charring. The overall inter‐observer correlation coefficient was 0.63. Conclusion Moses 2.0 has higher enucleation efficiency compared to non‐Moses when used by experts. The subjective evaluation favoured Moses 2.0.