Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of three different hemostatic agents on surgical and early renal functional outcomes after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). Materials and Methods: A total of 126 cases of LPN performed between November 2008 and September 2016 were enrolled in this study. Spongostan™ Absorbable Hemostatic Gelatin Sponge (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) or Surgicel® Original Absorbable Hemostat (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA), or a total of 5 mL of Floseal® Hemostatic Matrix (Baxter Healthcare, Deerfield, IL) was used for additional hemostasis. According to the hemostatic agent used, patients were divided into three groups; and patient characteristics, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, tumor characteristics, perioperative parameters, serum creatinine levels, and complications were compared among these three groups. Results: Age, BMI, ASA score, tumor characteristics, operative time, warm ischemia time, complication rates, and length of hospital stay were similar among the groups, whereas estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the Floseal Group (p=0.01). Postoperative serum creatinine levels and differences between preoperative and postoperative serum creatinine levels were also similar among the groups. Conclusion: The type of hemostatic agent used in LPN may affect the estimated blood loss. However, it has no substantial effect on other surgical parameters and early renal functional outcomes. Cite this article as: Aykan S, Temiz MZ, Ulus I, et al. The Use of Three Different Hemostatic Agents during Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: A Comparison of Surgical and Early Renal Functional Outcomes. Eurasian J Med 2019; 51(2): 159-63.

Objective: Not only the frequency of surgery for small renal masses has increased secondary to the improvements and frequent use of imaging techniques but also the frequency of detection of benign lesions in nephrectomy specimens has increased as well. We aimed to assess the predictive value of computed tomography density of perirenal adipose tissue and peritumoral adipose tissue in distinguishing between benign and malignant renal masses. Materials and Methods: The current study included 116 patients who underwent nephrectomy for renal masses between January 2015 and December 2020. Clinicodemographic and preoperative computed tomography features and final pathological findings of the patients were recorded. According to the final pathological results, the patients were divided into 2 groups benign (n = 32) and malignant (n = 84). Groups were compared statistically in terms of perirenal adipose tissue and peritumoral adipose tissue density. Results: The median tumor size was 5.00 cm. The rate of benign tumors was higher in female patients (P = .005). The median peritumoral adipose tissue density among cT1 and cT1a tumors was higher in the malignant group (P < .001, for each). At a cutoff value of 97.50 Hounsfield Units, the peritumoral adipose tissue density had a sensitivity of 83.0% and a specificity of 79.2% for predicting the presence of malignant tumors in ≤7 cm renal masses. Using a cutoff value of −97.50 Hounsfield Units, the peritumoral adipose tissue density had a sensitivity of 88.9% and a specificity of 83.3% for predicting the presence of malignant tumors in ≤4 cm renal masses. Conclusion: The peritumoral adipose tissue density in the preoperative computed tomography images predicts the malignancy in cT1 renal masses. Cite this article as: Sahin Y, Aygan S, Hacibey I, et al. Peritumoral adipose tissue density predicts the malignancy in cT1 renal masses. Urol Res Pract. 2023;49(3):191-197.

(1) Background: Standard semen analysis methods may exhibit variability between observers and/or human error; therefore, additional methods are needed to overcome these handicaps. We aimed to present a new smartphone-applied semen analyzer, Sperm Cell™, investigate its diagnostic efficacy by comparing it with the standard analysis method, and determine its user-friendly nature. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on a large sample cohort, including 102 men. Three semen analyses were performed for each semen sample. The first employed the standard manual method, whereas the others were smartphone-based analyses performed by technicians and patients. We compared major semen parameters between the three semen analyses. The user-friendly nature of the analyzer was also evaluated with a mini-questionnaire completed by the participants. (3) Results: The determined median sperm count, motile sperm count, and percentage of motile sperms, on standard manual semen analysis, were 50.00 × 10⁶/mL (0–160 × 10⁶/mL), 23.94 × 10⁶/mL (0–108 × 10⁶/mL) and 50.00% (0–73.00%), respectively. Median sperm count and motile sperm count were 50.52 × 10⁶/mL (<1–150 × 10⁶/mL) vs. 55.77 × 10⁶/mL ( 0.05 for each). The SpermCell™ analysis results were correlated with the standard manual method with up to 0.85 correlation coefficients. Moreover, substantial diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were obtained in determining the oligospermia and asthenozoospermia via the device-based analyses performed by technician and patients. The mini-questionnaire results revealed that the analyzer is useful. (4) Conclusions: The novel smartphone-applied semen analyzer is a helpful tool with acceptable diagnostic accuracy in determining the major semen parameters. It can be used as an efficient at-home point-of-care testing method in the initial assessment of couples with infertility concerns.

J Indian Prosthodont Soc, Official publication of Indian Prosthodontic Society