PDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/endourolojibulteni.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/image.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nEditorial Borad<\/h3>\n\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/endourolojibulteni.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/image-1.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nArbitrators List<\/h3>\n\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/endourolojibulteni.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/image-2.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nContents<\/h3>\n\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/endourolojibulteni.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/image-3.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat may be Related to Patient Satisfaction in Prostate Biopsies?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Prostat Biyopsilerinde Hasta Memnuniyeti Nelerle \u0130li\u015fkili Olabilir?<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective: <\/strong>To investigate the factors affecting patient satisfaction in patients undergoing prostate biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods: <\/strong>Two hundred thirty seven of 241 patients, aged between 48 and 86, those who are decided to undergo transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy, were evaluated prospectively. Age, body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, prostate volume, positive digital rectal examination (DRE) findings and biopsy indications of the patients were recorded before the procedure. The level of pain felt during biopsy was scored by visualised pain scoring (VAS). Patient satisfaction was evaluated with a 4-point scale after biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults:<\/strong> Of the 237 patients evaluated, 92 were dissatisfied with the procedure, while 145 were satisfied. The mean age of Group 1 and Group 2 were 65.9\u00b18.1 and 66.1 \u00b1 7.6 years, BMI were 27.7\u00b14.0 and 26.3 \u00b1 3.9 kg\/m2, PSA level were 58.6 \u00b1 304.6 and 17.9 \u00b1 68.1 ng\/ml, Prostate volume were 59.4 \u00b1 51.8 and 51.8 \u00b1 28.7 cc., The median VAS score was 4 (3-6) and 4 (2.5-6) respectively.
The satisfaction levels of positive DRE findings Group was 3 (2-3) while negative 3 (2-3), Tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while no tumor Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3), Perineural invasion of tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while other Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3).<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion:<\/strong> In TRUS-guided prostate biopsies, no relationship was found between the patient\u2019s satisfaction level and the patient\u2019s age, PSA level, prostate volume, the level of pain felt, positive DRE finding, positive Tumor pathology or having perineural invasion of the tumor histologically. There is a statistically significant relationship between BMI and the level of satisfaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords:<\/strong> Pain level, Prostate biopsy, Positive tumor pathology, Perineural invasion<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/endourolojibulteni.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/image-4.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nApproach to Forgotten Ureteral Stents: A Single Tertiary Center Experience of 49 Cases<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Cengiz \u00c7anakc\u0131, Erdin\u00e7 Din\u00e7er, Burak Do\u011frusever, Mahmut Selman Mert, Orkunt \u00d6zkaptan<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective:<\/strong> Double J (DJ) stents are widely used in urology practice. Forgotten ureteral stents can cause serious complications. We present our experience about forgotten ureteral stents with 49 cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods:<\/strong> The data of patients who were operated due to forgotten encrusted ureteral stents were examined retrospectively. Age, gender, side, presenting complaint, indwelling time, stent indication, surgery performed, complications, additional interventions and stone-free status were evaluated. For descriptive statistics, the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum frequencies and percentages were used.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults: <\/strong>Nineteen (38.8%) patients were female and 30 (61.2%) patients were male. The mean age of the patients was 47,06\u00b114,11 (18-79). The mean indwelling time was 16.2\u00b121,1 (3-120). Stents were placed in 30 patients due to stone surgery, 9 patients due to prophylactic before oncologic surgery, 8 patients due to hydronephrosis and two patients due to ureteral injury. For the treatment of the forgotten stent, ureteroscopy (including flexible ureterorenoscopy) was performed in 26 patients, endoscopic combined treatment in 11 patients, cystolithotripsy in 9 patients, open surgery in two patients and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in one patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion: <\/strong>Removal of forgotten impacted ureteral stents can cause serious complications. The patients who were placed stents should be informed about the complications associated with forgotten encrusted stents.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords:<\/strong> Ureteral Stents, Forgotten DJ, Encrustation, Indwelling Time<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/endourolojibulteni.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/image-7.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nEvaluation of the Use of Long Term DJ Stents in Ureteral Obstructions That Cannot Be Treated Curatively<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\u00d6zg\u00fcr Ar\u0131kan, \u0130lkin Hamid-zada, Ferhat Keser, Mustafa Kaan Akal\u0131n, \u00d6zg\u00fcr Efilo\u011flu, As\u0131f Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective: <\/strong>Ureteral obstructions may develop due to intrinsic or extrinsic, benign or malignant etiology and may cause loss of renal function, pain and recurrent urinary system diseases. Curative treatments for etiology are not always possible. We aimed to evaluate the clearance and salvage of this long term DJ stent, which has ureteral obstruction but can not be performed with curative surgery.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods:<\/strong> One hundred and thirty-one patients who underwent long term DJ stent application due to ureteral obstruction between 2015 and 2022 were followed up and evaluated retrospectively. Demographic data of the patients, ureteral obstruction etiology, follow-up period and complications were recorded. The 4.8F-26cm, Boston Percuflex\u2122Plus Ureteral Stent was used in the patients and was planned to be replaced once a year.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults:<\/strong> Of the 131 patients included in this study, 40 (30.53%) had malignant ureteral obstruction and 91 (69.47%) had benign ureteral obstruction. The average follow-up period was found to be 35.4 months. During their follow-up, 18 (13.74%) patients had symptoms such as stent related pain and dysuria, 11 (8.39%) had recurrent urinary tract infection, 8 (6.1%) had encrusted DJ stents, 3 (2.29%) had DJ stent migration and hematuria that requiring blood transfusion was observed in 1 (0.76%) patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusions:<\/strong> Our study showed that the use of long term ureteral DJ stent is a safe and effective option in malignant and benign ureteral obstructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Editorial Borad<\/h3>\n\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nArbitrators List<\/h3>\n\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nContents<\/h3>\n\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat may be Related to Patient Satisfaction in Prostate Biopsies?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Prostat Biyopsilerinde Hasta Memnuniyeti Nelerle \u0130li\u015fkili Olabilir?<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective: <\/strong>To investigate the factors affecting patient satisfaction in patients undergoing prostate biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods: <\/strong>Two hundred thirty seven of 241 patients, aged between 48 and 86, those who are decided to undergo transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy, were evaluated prospectively. Age, body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, prostate volume, positive digital rectal examination (DRE) findings and biopsy indications of the patients were recorded before the procedure. The level of pain felt during biopsy was scored by visualised pain scoring (VAS). Patient satisfaction was evaluated with a 4-point scale after biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults:<\/strong> Of the 237 patients evaluated, 92 were dissatisfied with the procedure, while 145 were satisfied. The mean age of Group 1 and Group 2 were 65.9\u00b18.1 and 66.1 \u00b1 7.6 years, BMI were 27.7\u00b14.0 and 26.3 \u00b1 3.9 kg\/m2, PSA level were 58.6 \u00b1 304.6 and 17.9 \u00b1 68.1 ng\/ml, Prostate volume were 59.4 \u00b1 51.8 and 51.8 \u00b1 28.7 cc., The median VAS score was 4 (3-6) and 4 (2.5-6) respectively.
The satisfaction levels of positive DRE findings Group was 3 (2-3) while negative 3 (2-3), Tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while no tumor Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3), Perineural invasion of tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while other Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3).<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion:<\/strong> In TRUS-guided prostate biopsies, no relationship was found between the patient\u2019s satisfaction level and the patient\u2019s age, PSA level, prostate volume, the level of pain felt, positive DRE finding, positive Tumor pathology or having perineural invasion of the tumor histologically. There is a statistically significant relationship between BMI and the level of satisfaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords:<\/strong> Pain level, Prostate biopsy, Positive tumor pathology, Perineural invasion<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nApproach to Forgotten Ureteral Stents: A Single Tertiary Center Experience of 49 Cases<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Cengiz \u00c7anakc\u0131, Erdin\u00e7 Din\u00e7er, Burak Do\u011frusever, Mahmut Selman Mert, Orkunt \u00d6zkaptan<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective:<\/strong> Double J (DJ) stents are widely used in urology practice. Forgotten ureteral stents can cause serious complications. We present our experience about forgotten ureteral stents with 49 cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods:<\/strong> The data of patients who were operated due to forgotten encrusted ureteral stents were examined retrospectively. Age, gender, side, presenting complaint, indwelling time, stent indication, surgery performed, complications, additional interventions and stone-free status were evaluated. For descriptive statistics, the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum frequencies and percentages were used.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults: <\/strong>Nineteen (38.8%) patients were female and 30 (61.2%) patients were male. The mean age of the patients was 47,06\u00b114,11 (18-79). The mean indwelling time was 16.2\u00b121,1 (3-120). Stents were placed in 30 patients due to stone surgery, 9 patients due to prophylactic before oncologic surgery, 8 patients due to hydronephrosis and two patients due to ureteral injury. For the treatment of the forgotten stent, ureteroscopy (including flexible ureterorenoscopy) was performed in 26 patients, endoscopic combined treatment in 11 patients, cystolithotripsy in 9 patients, open surgery in two patients and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in one patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion: <\/strong>Removal of forgotten impacted ureteral stents can cause serious complications. The patients who were placed stents should be informed about the complications associated with forgotten encrusted stents.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords:<\/strong> Ureteral Stents, Forgotten DJ, Encrustation, Indwelling Time<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nEvaluation of the Use of Long Term DJ Stents in Ureteral Obstructions That Cannot Be Treated Curatively<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\u00d6zg\u00fcr Ar\u0131kan, \u0130lkin Hamid-zada, Ferhat Keser, Mustafa Kaan Akal\u0131n, \u00d6zg\u00fcr Efilo\u011flu, As\u0131f Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective: <\/strong>Ureteral obstructions may develop due to intrinsic or extrinsic, benign or malignant etiology and may cause loss of renal function, pain and recurrent urinary system diseases. Curative treatments for etiology are not always possible. We aimed to evaluate the clearance and salvage of this long term DJ stent, which has ureteral obstruction but can not be performed with curative surgery.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods:<\/strong> One hundred and thirty-one patients who underwent long term DJ stent application due to ureteral obstruction between 2015 and 2022 were followed up and evaluated retrospectively. Demographic data of the patients, ureteral obstruction etiology, follow-up period and complications were recorded. The 4.8F-26cm, Boston Percuflex\u2122Plus Ureteral Stent was used in the patients and was planned to be replaced once a year.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults:<\/strong> Of the 131 patients included in this study, 40 (30.53%) had malignant ureteral obstruction and 91 (69.47%) had benign ureteral obstruction. The average follow-up period was found to be 35.4 months. During their follow-up, 18 (13.74%) patients had symptoms such as stent related pain and dysuria, 11 (8.39%) had recurrent urinary tract infection, 8 (6.1%) had encrusted DJ stents, 3 (2.29%) had DJ stent migration and hematuria that requiring blood transfusion was observed in 1 (0.76%) patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusions:<\/strong> Our study showed that the use of long term ureteral DJ stent is a safe and effective option in malignant and benign ureteral obstructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
PDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nArbitrators List<\/h3>\n\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nContents<\/h3>\n\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat may be Related to Patient Satisfaction in Prostate Biopsies?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Prostat Biyopsilerinde Hasta Memnuniyeti Nelerle \u0130li\u015fkili Olabilir?<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective: <\/strong>To investigate the factors affecting patient satisfaction in patients undergoing prostate biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods: <\/strong>Two hundred thirty seven of 241 patients, aged between 48 and 86, those who are decided to undergo transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy, were evaluated prospectively. Age, body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, prostate volume, positive digital rectal examination (DRE) findings and biopsy indications of the patients were recorded before the procedure. The level of pain felt during biopsy was scored by visualised pain scoring (VAS). Patient satisfaction was evaluated with a 4-point scale after biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults:<\/strong> Of the 237 patients evaluated, 92 were dissatisfied with the procedure, while 145 were satisfied. The mean age of Group 1 and Group 2 were 65.9\u00b18.1 and 66.1 \u00b1 7.6 years, BMI were 27.7\u00b14.0 and 26.3 \u00b1 3.9 kg\/m2, PSA level were 58.6 \u00b1 304.6 and 17.9 \u00b1 68.1 ng\/ml, Prostate volume were 59.4 \u00b1 51.8 and 51.8 \u00b1 28.7 cc., The median VAS score was 4 (3-6) and 4 (2.5-6) respectively.
The satisfaction levels of positive DRE findings Group was 3 (2-3) while negative 3 (2-3), Tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while no tumor Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3), Perineural invasion of tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while other Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3).<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion:<\/strong> In TRUS-guided prostate biopsies, no relationship was found between the patient\u2019s satisfaction level and the patient\u2019s age, PSA level, prostate volume, the level of pain felt, positive DRE finding, positive Tumor pathology or having perineural invasion of the tumor histologically. There is a statistically significant relationship between BMI and the level of satisfaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords:<\/strong> Pain level, Prostate biopsy, Positive tumor pathology, Perineural invasion<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nApproach to Forgotten Ureteral Stents: A Single Tertiary Center Experience of 49 Cases<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Cengiz \u00c7anakc\u0131, Erdin\u00e7 Din\u00e7er, Burak Do\u011frusever, Mahmut Selman Mert, Orkunt \u00d6zkaptan<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective:<\/strong> Double J (DJ) stents are widely used in urology practice. Forgotten ureteral stents can cause serious complications. We present our experience about forgotten ureteral stents with 49 cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods:<\/strong> The data of patients who were operated due to forgotten encrusted ureteral stents were examined retrospectively. Age, gender, side, presenting complaint, indwelling time, stent indication, surgery performed, complications, additional interventions and stone-free status were evaluated. For descriptive statistics, the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum frequencies and percentages were used.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults: <\/strong>Nineteen (38.8%) patients were female and 30 (61.2%) patients were male. The mean age of the patients was 47,06\u00b114,11 (18-79). The mean indwelling time was 16.2\u00b121,1 (3-120). Stents were placed in 30 patients due to stone surgery, 9 patients due to prophylactic before oncologic surgery, 8 patients due to hydronephrosis and two patients due to ureteral injury. For the treatment of the forgotten stent, ureteroscopy (including flexible ureterorenoscopy) was performed in 26 patients, endoscopic combined treatment in 11 patients, cystolithotripsy in 9 patients, open surgery in two patients and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in one patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion: <\/strong>Removal of forgotten impacted ureteral stents can cause serious complications. The patients who were placed stents should be informed about the complications associated with forgotten encrusted stents.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords:<\/strong> Ureteral Stents, Forgotten DJ, Encrustation, Indwelling Time<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nEvaluation of the Use of Long Term DJ Stents in Ureteral Obstructions That Cannot Be Treated Curatively<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\u00d6zg\u00fcr Ar\u0131kan, \u0130lkin Hamid-zada, Ferhat Keser, Mustafa Kaan Akal\u0131n, \u00d6zg\u00fcr Efilo\u011flu, As\u0131f Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective: <\/strong>Ureteral obstructions may develop due to intrinsic or extrinsic, benign or malignant etiology and may cause loss of renal function, pain and recurrent urinary system diseases. Curative treatments for etiology are not always possible. We aimed to evaluate the clearance and salvage of this long term DJ stent, which has ureteral obstruction but can not be performed with curative surgery.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods:<\/strong> One hundred and thirty-one patients who underwent long term DJ stent application due to ureteral obstruction between 2015 and 2022 were followed up and evaluated retrospectively. Demographic data of the patients, ureteral obstruction etiology, follow-up period and complications were recorded. The 4.8F-26cm, Boston Percuflex\u2122Plus Ureteral Stent was used in the patients and was planned to be replaced once a year.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults:<\/strong> Of the 131 patients included in this study, 40 (30.53%) had malignant ureteral obstruction and 91 (69.47%) had benign ureteral obstruction. The average follow-up period was found to be 35.4 months. During their follow-up, 18 (13.74%) patients had symptoms such as stent related pain and dysuria, 11 (8.39%) had recurrent urinary tract infection, 8 (6.1%) had encrusted DJ stents, 3 (2.29%) had DJ stent migration and hematuria that requiring blood transfusion was observed in 1 (0.76%) patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusions:<\/strong> Our study showed that the use of long term ureteral DJ stent is a safe and effective option in malignant and benign ureteral obstructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Arbitrators List<\/h3>\n\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nContents<\/h3>\n\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat may be Related to Patient Satisfaction in Prostate Biopsies?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Prostat Biyopsilerinde Hasta Memnuniyeti Nelerle \u0130li\u015fkili Olabilir?<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective: <\/strong>To investigate the factors affecting patient satisfaction in patients undergoing prostate biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods: <\/strong>Two hundred thirty seven of 241 patients, aged between 48 and 86, those who are decided to undergo transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy, were evaluated prospectively. Age, body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, prostate volume, positive digital rectal examination (DRE) findings and biopsy indications of the patients were recorded before the procedure. The level of pain felt during biopsy was scored by visualised pain scoring (VAS). Patient satisfaction was evaluated with a 4-point scale after biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults:<\/strong> Of the 237 patients evaluated, 92 were dissatisfied with the procedure, while 145 were satisfied. The mean age of Group 1 and Group 2 were 65.9\u00b18.1 and 66.1 \u00b1 7.6 years, BMI were 27.7\u00b14.0 and 26.3 \u00b1 3.9 kg\/m2, PSA level were 58.6 \u00b1 304.6 and 17.9 \u00b1 68.1 ng\/ml, Prostate volume were 59.4 \u00b1 51.8 and 51.8 \u00b1 28.7 cc., The median VAS score was 4 (3-6) and 4 (2.5-6) respectively.
The satisfaction levels of positive DRE findings Group was 3 (2-3) while negative 3 (2-3), Tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while no tumor Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3), Perineural invasion of tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while other Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3).<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion:<\/strong> In TRUS-guided prostate biopsies, no relationship was found between the patient\u2019s satisfaction level and the patient\u2019s age, PSA level, prostate volume, the level of pain felt, positive DRE finding, positive Tumor pathology or having perineural invasion of the tumor histologically. There is a statistically significant relationship between BMI and the level of satisfaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords:<\/strong> Pain level, Prostate biopsy, Positive tumor pathology, Perineural invasion<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nApproach to Forgotten Ureteral Stents: A Single Tertiary Center Experience of 49 Cases<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Cengiz \u00c7anakc\u0131, Erdin\u00e7 Din\u00e7er, Burak Do\u011frusever, Mahmut Selman Mert, Orkunt \u00d6zkaptan<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective:<\/strong> Double J (DJ) stents are widely used in urology practice. Forgotten ureteral stents can cause serious complications. We present our experience about forgotten ureteral stents with 49 cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods:<\/strong> The data of patients who were operated due to forgotten encrusted ureteral stents were examined retrospectively. Age, gender, side, presenting complaint, indwelling time, stent indication, surgery performed, complications, additional interventions and stone-free status were evaluated. For descriptive statistics, the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum frequencies and percentages were used.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults: <\/strong>Nineteen (38.8%) patients were female and 30 (61.2%) patients were male. The mean age of the patients was 47,06\u00b114,11 (18-79). The mean indwelling time was 16.2\u00b121,1 (3-120). Stents were placed in 30 patients due to stone surgery, 9 patients due to prophylactic before oncologic surgery, 8 patients due to hydronephrosis and two patients due to ureteral injury. For the treatment of the forgotten stent, ureteroscopy (including flexible ureterorenoscopy) was performed in 26 patients, endoscopic combined treatment in 11 patients, cystolithotripsy in 9 patients, open surgery in two patients and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in one patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion: <\/strong>Removal of forgotten impacted ureteral stents can cause serious complications. The patients who were placed stents should be informed about the complications associated with forgotten encrusted stents.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords:<\/strong> Ureteral Stents, Forgotten DJ, Encrustation, Indwelling Time<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nEvaluation of the Use of Long Term DJ Stents in Ureteral Obstructions That Cannot Be Treated Curatively<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\u00d6zg\u00fcr Ar\u0131kan, \u0130lkin Hamid-zada, Ferhat Keser, Mustafa Kaan Akal\u0131n, \u00d6zg\u00fcr Efilo\u011flu, As\u0131f Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective: <\/strong>Ureteral obstructions may develop due to intrinsic or extrinsic, benign or malignant etiology and may cause loss of renal function, pain and recurrent urinary system diseases. Curative treatments for etiology are not always possible. We aimed to evaluate the clearance and salvage of this long term DJ stent, which has ureteral obstruction but can not be performed with curative surgery.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods:<\/strong> One hundred and thirty-one patients who underwent long term DJ stent application due to ureteral obstruction between 2015 and 2022 were followed up and evaluated retrospectively. Demographic data of the patients, ureteral obstruction etiology, follow-up period and complications were recorded. The 4.8F-26cm, Boston Percuflex\u2122Plus Ureteral Stent was used in the patients and was planned to be replaced once a year.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults:<\/strong> Of the 131 patients included in this study, 40 (30.53%) had malignant ureteral obstruction and 91 (69.47%) had benign ureteral obstruction. The average follow-up period was found to be 35.4 months. During their follow-up, 18 (13.74%) patients had symptoms such as stent related pain and dysuria, 11 (8.39%) had recurrent urinary tract infection, 8 (6.1%) had encrusted DJ stents, 3 (2.29%) had DJ stent migration and hematuria that requiring blood transfusion was observed in 1 (0.76%) patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusions:<\/strong> Our study showed that the use of long term ureteral DJ stent is a safe and effective option in malignant and benign ureteral obstructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
PDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nContents<\/h3>\n\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat may be Related to Patient Satisfaction in Prostate Biopsies?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Prostat Biyopsilerinde Hasta Memnuniyeti Nelerle \u0130li\u015fkili Olabilir?<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective: <\/strong>To investigate the factors affecting patient satisfaction in patients undergoing prostate biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods: <\/strong>Two hundred thirty seven of 241 patients, aged between 48 and 86, those who are decided to undergo transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy, were evaluated prospectively. Age, body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, prostate volume, positive digital rectal examination (DRE) findings and biopsy indications of the patients were recorded before the procedure. The level of pain felt during biopsy was scored by visualised pain scoring (VAS). Patient satisfaction was evaluated with a 4-point scale after biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults:<\/strong> Of the 237 patients evaluated, 92 were dissatisfied with the procedure, while 145 were satisfied. The mean age of Group 1 and Group 2 were 65.9\u00b18.1 and 66.1 \u00b1 7.6 years, BMI were 27.7\u00b14.0 and 26.3 \u00b1 3.9 kg\/m2, PSA level were 58.6 \u00b1 304.6 and 17.9 \u00b1 68.1 ng\/ml, Prostate volume were 59.4 \u00b1 51.8 and 51.8 \u00b1 28.7 cc., The median VAS score was 4 (3-6) and 4 (2.5-6) respectively.
The satisfaction levels of positive DRE findings Group was 3 (2-3) while negative 3 (2-3), Tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while no tumor Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3), Perineural invasion of tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while other Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3).<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion:<\/strong> In TRUS-guided prostate biopsies, no relationship was found between the patient\u2019s satisfaction level and the patient\u2019s age, PSA level, prostate volume, the level of pain felt, positive DRE finding, positive Tumor pathology or having perineural invasion of the tumor histologically. There is a statistically significant relationship between BMI and the level of satisfaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords:<\/strong> Pain level, Prostate biopsy, Positive tumor pathology, Perineural invasion<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nApproach to Forgotten Ureteral Stents: A Single Tertiary Center Experience of 49 Cases<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Cengiz \u00c7anakc\u0131, Erdin\u00e7 Din\u00e7er, Burak Do\u011frusever, Mahmut Selman Mert, Orkunt \u00d6zkaptan<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective:<\/strong> Double J (DJ) stents are widely used in urology practice. Forgotten ureteral stents can cause serious complications. We present our experience about forgotten ureteral stents with 49 cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods:<\/strong> The data of patients who were operated due to forgotten encrusted ureteral stents were examined retrospectively. Age, gender, side, presenting complaint, indwelling time, stent indication, surgery performed, complications, additional interventions and stone-free status were evaluated. For descriptive statistics, the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum frequencies and percentages were used.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults: <\/strong>Nineteen (38.8%) patients were female and 30 (61.2%) patients were male. The mean age of the patients was 47,06\u00b114,11 (18-79). The mean indwelling time was 16.2\u00b121,1 (3-120). Stents were placed in 30 patients due to stone surgery, 9 patients due to prophylactic before oncologic surgery, 8 patients due to hydronephrosis and two patients due to ureteral injury. For the treatment of the forgotten stent, ureteroscopy (including flexible ureterorenoscopy) was performed in 26 patients, endoscopic combined treatment in 11 patients, cystolithotripsy in 9 patients, open surgery in two patients and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in one patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion: <\/strong>Removal of forgotten impacted ureteral stents can cause serious complications. The patients who were placed stents should be informed about the complications associated with forgotten encrusted stents.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords:<\/strong> Ureteral Stents, Forgotten DJ, Encrustation, Indwelling Time<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nEvaluation of the Use of Long Term DJ Stents in Ureteral Obstructions That Cannot Be Treated Curatively<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\u00d6zg\u00fcr Ar\u0131kan, \u0130lkin Hamid-zada, Ferhat Keser, Mustafa Kaan Akal\u0131n, \u00d6zg\u00fcr Efilo\u011flu, As\u0131f Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective: <\/strong>Ureteral obstructions may develop due to intrinsic or extrinsic, benign or malignant etiology and may cause loss of renal function, pain and recurrent urinary system diseases. Curative treatments for etiology are not always possible. We aimed to evaluate the clearance and salvage of this long term DJ stent, which has ureteral obstruction but can not be performed with curative surgery.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods:<\/strong> One hundred and thirty-one patients who underwent long term DJ stent application due to ureteral obstruction between 2015 and 2022 were followed up and evaluated retrospectively. Demographic data of the patients, ureteral obstruction etiology, follow-up period and complications were recorded. The 4.8F-26cm, Boston Percuflex\u2122Plus Ureteral Stent was used in the patients and was planned to be replaced once a year.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults:<\/strong> Of the 131 patients included in this study, 40 (30.53%) had malignant ureteral obstruction and 91 (69.47%) had benign ureteral obstruction. The average follow-up period was found to be 35.4 months. During their follow-up, 18 (13.74%) patients had symptoms such as stent related pain and dysuria, 11 (8.39%) had recurrent urinary tract infection, 8 (6.1%) had encrusted DJ stents, 3 (2.29%) had DJ stent migration and hematuria that requiring blood transfusion was observed in 1 (0.76%) patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusions:<\/strong> Our study showed that the use of long term ureteral DJ stent is a safe and effective option in malignant and benign ureteral obstructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Contents<\/h3>\n\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat may be Related to Patient Satisfaction in Prostate Biopsies?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Prostat Biyopsilerinde Hasta Memnuniyeti Nelerle \u0130li\u015fkili Olabilir?<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective: <\/strong>To investigate the factors affecting patient satisfaction in patients undergoing prostate biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods: <\/strong>Two hundred thirty seven of 241 patients, aged between 48 and 86, those who are decided to undergo transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy, were evaluated prospectively. Age, body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, prostate volume, positive digital rectal examination (DRE) findings and biopsy indications of the patients were recorded before the procedure. The level of pain felt during biopsy was scored by visualised pain scoring (VAS). Patient satisfaction was evaluated with a 4-point scale after biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults:<\/strong> Of the 237 patients evaluated, 92 were dissatisfied with the procedure, while 145 were satisfied. The mean age of Group 1 and Group 2 were 65.9\u00b18.1 and 66.1 \u00b1 7.6 years, BMI were 27.7\u00b14.0 and 26.3 \u00b1 3.9 kg\/m2, PSA level were 58.6 \u00b1 304.6 and 17.9 \u00b1 68.1 ng\/ml, Prostate volume were 59.4 \u00b1 51.8 and 51.8 \u00b1 28.7 cc., The median VAS score was 4 (3-6) and 4 (2.5-6) respectively.
The satisfaction levels of positive DRE findings Group was 3 (2-3) while negative 3 (2-3), Tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while no tumor Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3), Perineural invasion of tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while other Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3).<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion:<\/strong> In TRUS-guided prostate biopsies, no relationship was found between the patient\u2019s satisfaction level and the patient\u2019s age, PSA level, prostate volume, the level of pain felt, positive DRE finding, positive Tumor pathology or having perineural invasion of the tumor histologically. There is a statistically significant relationship between BMI and the level of satisfaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords:<\/strong> Pain level, Prostate biopsy, Positive tumor pathology, Perineural invasion<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nApproach to Forgotten Ureteral Stents: A Single Tertiary Center Experience of 49 Cases<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Cengiz \u00c7anakc\u0131, Erdin\u00e7 Din\u00e7er, Burak Do\u011frusever, Mahmut Selman Mert, Orkunt \u00d6zkaptan<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective:<\/strong> Double J (DJ) stents are widely used in urology practice. Forgotten ureteral stents can cause serious complications. We present our experience about forgotten ureteral stents with 49 cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods:<\/strong> The data of patients who were operated due to forgotten encrusted ureteral stents were examined retrospectively. Age, gender, side, presenting complaint, indwelling time, stent indication, surgery performed, complications, additional interventions and stone-free status were evaluated. For descriptive statistics, the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum frequencies and percentages were used.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults: <\/strong>Nineteen (38.8%) patients were female and 30 (61.2%) patients were male. The mean age of the patients was 47,06\u00b114,11 (18-79). The mean indwelling time was 16.2\u00b121,1 (3-120). Stents were placed in 30 patients due to stone surgery, 9 patients due to prophylactic before oncologic surgery, 8 patients due to hydronephrosis and two patients due to ureteral injury. For the treatment of the forgotten stent, ureteroscopy (including flexible ureterorenoscopy) was performed in 26 patients, endoscopic combined treatment in 11 patients, cystolithotripsy in 9 patients, open surgery in two patients and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in one patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion: <\/strong>Removal of forgotten impacted ureteral stents can cause serious complications. The patients who were placed stents should be informed about the complications associated with forgotten encrusted stents.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords:<\/strong> Ureteral Stents, Forgotten DJ, Encrustation, Indwelling Time<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nEvaluation of the Use of Long Term DJ Stents in Ureteral Obstructions That Cannot Be Treated Curatively<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\u00d6zg\u00fcr Ar\u0131kan, \u0130lkin Hamid-zada, Ferhat Keser, Mustafa Kaan Akal\u0131n, \u00d6zg\u00fcr Efilo\u011flu, As\u0131f Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective: <\/strong>Ureteral obstructions may develop due to intrinsic or extrinsic, benign or malignant etiology and may cause loss of renal function, pain and recurrent urinary system diseases. Curative treatments for etiology are not always possible. We aimed to evaluate the clearance and salvage of this long term DJ stent, which has ureteral obstruction but can not be performed with curative surgery.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods:<\/strong> One hundred and thirty-one patients who underwent long term DJ stent application due to ureteral obstruction between 2015 and 2022 were followed up and evaluated retrospectively. Demographic data of the patients, ureteral obstruction etiology, follow-up period and complications were recorded. The 4.8F-26cm, Boston Percuflex\u2122Plus Ureteral Stent was used in the patients and was planned to be replaced once a year.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults:<\/strong> Of the 131 patients included in this study, 40 (30.53%) had malignant ureteral obstruction and 91 (69.47%) had benign ureteral obstruction. The average follow-up period was found to be 35.4 months. During their follow-up, 18 (13.74%) patients had symptoms such as stent related pain and dysuria, 11 (8.39%) had recurrent urinary tract infection, 8 (6.1%) had encrusted DJ stents, 3 (2.29%) had DJ stent migration and hematuria that requiring blood transfusion was observed in 1 (0.76%) patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusions:<\/strong> Our study showed that the use of long term ureteral DJ stent is a safe and effective option in malignant and benign ureteral obstructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
PDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat may be Related to Patient Satisfaction in Prostate Biopsies?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Prostat Biyopsilerinde Hasta Memnuniyeti Nelerle \u0130li\u015fkili Olabilir?<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective: <\/strong>To investigate the factors affecting patient satisfaction in patients undergoing prostate biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods: <\/strong>Two hundred thirty seven of 241 patients, aged between 48 and 86, those who are decided to undergo transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy, were evaluated prospectively. Age, body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, prostate volume, positive digital rectal examination (DRE) findings and biopsy indications of the patients were recorded before the procedure. The level of pain felt during biopsy was scored by visualised pain scoring (VAS). Patient satisfaction was evaluated with a 4-point scale after biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults:<\/strong> Of the 237 patients evaluated, 92 were dissatisfied with the procedure, while 145 were satisfied. The mean age of Group 1 and Group 2 were 65.9\u00b18.1 and 66.1 \u00b1 7.6 years, BMI were 27.7\u00b14.0 and 26.3 \u00b1 3.9 kg\/m2, PSA level were 58.6 \u00b1 304.6 and 17.9 \u00b1 68.1 ng\/ml, Prostate volume were 59.4 \u00b1 51.8 and 51.8 \u00b1 28.7 cc., The median VAS score was 4 (3-6) and 4 (2.5-6) respectively.
The satisfaction levels of positive DRE findings Group was 3 (2-3) while negative 3 (2-3), Tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while no tumor Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3), Perineural invasion of tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while other Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3).<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion:<\/strong> In TRUS-guided prostate biopsies, no relationship was found between the patient\u2019s satisfaction level and the patient\u2019s age, PSA level, prostate volume, the level of pain felt, positive DRE finding, positive Tumor pathology or having perineural invasion of the tumor histologically. There is a statistically significant relationship between BMI and the level of satisfaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords:<\/strong> Pain level, Prostate biopsy, Positive tumor pathology, Perineural invasion<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nApproach to Forgotten Ureteral Stents: A Single Tertiary Center Experience of 49 Cases<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Cengiz \u00c7anakc\u0131, Erdin\u00e7 Din\u00e7er, Burak Do\u011frusever, Mahmut Selman Mert, Orkunt \u00d6zkaptan<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective:<\/strong> Double J (DJ) stents are widely used in urology practice. Forgotten ureteral stents can cause serious complications. We present our experience about forgotten ureteral stents with 49 cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods:<\/strong> The data of patients who were operated due to forgotten encrusted ureteral stents were examined retrospectively. Age, gender, side, presenting complaint, indwelling time, stent indication, surgery performed, complications, additional interventions and stone-free status were evaluated. For descriptive statistics, the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum frequencies and percentages were used.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults: <\/strong>Nineteen (38.8%) patients were female and 30 (61.2%) patients were male. The mean age of the patients was 47,06\u00b114,11 (18-79). The mean indwelling time was 16.2\u00b121,1 (3-120). Stents were placed in 30 patients due to stone surgery, 9 patients due to prophylactic before oncologic surgery, 8 patients due to hydronephrosis and two patients due to ureteral injury. For the treatment of the forgotten stent, ureteroscopy (including flexible ureterorenoscopy) was performed in 26 patients, endoscopic combined treatment in 11 patients, cystolithotripsy in 9 patients, open surgery in two patients and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in one patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion: <\/strong>Removal of forgotten impacted ureteral stents can cause serious complications. The patients who were placed stents should be informed about the complications associated with forgotten encrusted stents.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords:<\/strong> Ureteral Stents, Forgotten DJ, Encrustation, Indwelling Time<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOriginal Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nEvaluation of the Use of Long Term DJ Stents in Ureteral Obstructions That Cannot Be Treated Curatively<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\u00d6zg\u00fcr Ar\u0131kan, \u0130lkin Hamid-zada, Ferhat Keser, Mustafa Kaan Akal\u0131n, \u00d6zg\u00fcr Efilo\u011flu, As\u0131f Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m<\/p>\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>\n\nObjective: <\/strong>Ureteral obstructions may develop due to intrinsic or extrinsic, benign or malignant etiology and may cause loss of renal function, pain and recurrent urinary system diseases. Curative treatments for etiology are not always possible. We aimed to evaluate the clearance and salvage of this long term DJ stent, which has ureteral obstruction but can not be performed with curative surgery.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaterial and Methods:<\/strong> One hundred and thirty-one patients who underwent long term DJ stent application due to ureteral obstruction between 2015 and 2022 were followed up and evaluated retrospectively. Demographic data of the patients, ureteral obstruction etiology, follow-up period and complications were recorded. The 4.8F-26cm, Boston Percuflex\u2122Plus Ureteral Stent was used in the patients and was planned to be replaced once a year.<\/p>\n\n\n\nResults:<\/strong> Of the 131 patients included in this study, 40 (30.53%) had malignant ureteral obstruction and 91 (69.47%) had benign ureteral obstruction. The average follow-up period was found to be 35.4 months. During their follow-up, 18 (13.74%) patients had symptoms such as stent related pain and dysuria, 11 (8.39%) had recurrent urinary tract infection, 8 (6.1%) had encrusted DJ stents, 3 (2.29%) had DJ stent migration and hematuria that requiring blood transfusion was observed in 1 (0.76%) patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusions:<\/strong> Our study showed that the use of long term ureteral DJ stent is a safe and effective option in malignant and benign ureteral obstructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Original Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Prostat Biyopsilerinde Hasta Memnuniyeti Nelerle \u0130li\u015fkili Olabilir?<\/p>\n\n\n Objective: <\/strong>To investigate the factors affecting patient satisfaction in patients undergoing prostate biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Material and Methods: <\/strong>Two hundred thirty seven of 241 patients, aged between 48 and 86, those who are decided to undergo transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy, were evaluated prospectively. Age, body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, prostate volume, positive digital rectal examination (DRE) findings and biopsy indications of the patients were recorded before the procedure. The level of pain felt during biopsy was scored by visualised pain scoring (VAS). Patient satisfaction was evaluated with a 4-point scale after biopsy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Results:<\/strong> Of the 237 patients evaluated, 92 were dissatisfied with the procedure, while 145 were satisfied. The mean age of Group 1 and Group 2 were 65.9\u00b18.1 and 66.1 \u00b1 7.6 years, BMI were 27.7\u00b14.0 and 26.3 \u00b1 3.9 kg\/m2, PSA level were 58.6 \u00b1 304.6 and 17.9 \u00b1 68.1 ng\/ml, Prostate volume were 59.4 \u00b1 51.8 and 51.8 \u00b1 28.7 cc., The median VAS score was 4 (3-6) and 4 (2.5-6) respectively. Conclusion:<\/strong> In TRUS-guided prostate biopsies, no relationship was found between the patient\u2019s satisfaction level and the patient\u2019s age, PSA level, prostate volume, the level of pain felt, positive DRE finding, positive Tumor pathology or having perineural invasion of the tumor histologically. There is a statistically significant relationship between BMI and the level of satisfaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keywords:<\/strong> Pain level, Prostate biopsy, Positive tumor pathology, Perineural invasion<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n Original Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Cengiz \u00c7anakc\u0131, Erdin\u00e7 Din\u00e7er, Burak Do\u011frusever, Mahmut Selman Mert, Orkunt \u00d6zkaptan<\/p>\n\n\n Objective:<\/strong> Double J (DJ) stents are widely used in urology practice. Forgotten ureteral stents can cause serious complications. We present our experience about forgotten ureteral stents with 49 cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Material and Methods:<\/strong> The data of patients who were operated due to forgotten encrusted ureteral stents were examined retrospectively. Age, gender, side, presenting complaint, indwelling time, stent indication, surgery performed, complications, additional interventions and stone-free status were evaluated. For descriptive statistics, the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum frequencies and percentages were used.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Results: <\/strong>Nineteen (38.8%) patients were female and 30 (61.2%) patients were male. The mean age of the patients was 47,06\u00b114,11 (18-79). The mean indwelling time was 16.2\u00b121,1 (3-120). Stents were placed in 30 patients due to stone surgery, 9 patients due to prophylactic before oncologic surgery, 8 patients due to hydronephrosis and two patients due to ureteral injury. For the treatment of the forgotten stent, ureteroscopy (including flexible ureterorenoscopy) was performed in 26 patients, endoscopic combined treatment in 11 patients, cystolithotripsy in 9 patients, open surgery in two patients and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in one patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conclusion: <\/strong>Removal of forgotten impacted ureteral stents can cause serious complications. The patients who were placed stents should be informed about the complications associated with forgotten encrusted stents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keywords:<\/strong> Ureteral Stents, Forgotten DJ, Encrustation, Indwelling Time<\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n Original Article<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00d6zg\u00fcr Ar\u0131kan, \u0130lkin Hamid-zada, Ferhat Keser, Mustafa Kaan Akal\u0131n, \u00d6zg\u00fcr Efilo\u011flu, As\u0131f Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m<\/p>\n\n\n Objective: <\/strong>Ureteral obstructions may develop due to intrinsic or extrinsic, benign or malignant etiology and may cause loss of renal function, pain and recurrent urinary system diseases. Curative treatments for etiology are not always possible. We aimed to evaluate the clearance and salvage of this long term DJ stent, which has ureteral obstruction but can not be performed with curative surgery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Material and Methods:<\/strong> One hundred and thirty-one patients who underwent long term DJ stent application due to ureteral obstruction between 2015 and 2022 were followed up and evaluated retrospectively. Demographic data of the patients, ureteral obstruction etiology, follow-up period and complications were recorded. The 4.8F-26cm, Boston Percuflex\u2122Plus Ureteral Stent was used in the patients and was planned to be replaced once a year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Results:<\/strong> Of the 131 patients included in this study, 40 (30.53%) had malignant ureteral obstruction and 91 (69.47%) had benign ureteral obstruction. The average follow-up period was found to be 35.4 months. During their follow-up, 18 (13.74%) patients had symptoms such as stent related pain and dysuria, 11 (8.39%) had recurrent urinary tract infection, 8 (6.1%) had encrusted DJ stents, 3 (2.29%) had DJ stent migration and hematuria that requiring blood transfusion was observed in 1 (0.76%) patient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conclusions:<\/strong> Our study showed that the use of long term ureteral DJ stent is a safe and effective option in malignant and benign ureteral obstructions.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat may be Related to Patient Satisfaction in Prostate Biopsies?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>
The satisfaction levels of positive DRE findings Group was 3 (2-3) while negative 3 (2-3), Tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while no tumor Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3), Perineural invasion of tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while other Group\u2019s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3).<\/p>\n\n\n\nPDF<\/span><\/summary>
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nApproach to Forgotten Ureteral Stents: A Single Tertiary Center Experience of 49 Cases<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>
PDF<\/span><\/summary>
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nEvaluation of the Use of Long Term DJ Stents in Ureteral Obstructions That Cannot Be Treated Curatively<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Abstract<\/span><\/summary>
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/endourolojibulteni.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/image-5.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/endourolojibulteni.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/image-6.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/endourolojibulteni.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/image-9.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n<\/div><\/details><\/div>\n\n\n