Background: We investigated whether the frequency of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) increased in patients in whom double-J stents were applied. We also evaluated several medical therapy protocols to treat symptoms related with ureteral stents.Materials and Methods: A total of 108 patients, in whom unilateral double-j stent was applied during ureteral stone treatment, were included. Before the double-J stent was applied, all patients completed storage components of the “International Prostate Symptom Score” (IPSSs), quality of life components of the IPSS (IPSS-QOL) and “Overactive Bladder Questionnaire” (OABq) forms and scores were calculated. After the procedure, cases were randomized into 5 groups, an antiinflammatory was given to Group 1, spasmolytic to Group 2, anticholinergic to Group 3 and α-blocker to Group 4. No additional drug was given to Group 5 as this control group. During the fourth week of the procedure, IPSSs, IPSS-QOL and OABq forms were again completed and scores were compared with the previous ones.Results: When all the cases were evaluated, the IPSSs, IPSS-QOLand OABq scores of patients in whom the double-J stent was applied were statistically significantly higher the procedure. Compared to the control group, the cases where the double-J stent was applied showed a higher IPSSs, IPSS-QOL and OABq scores and none of the medical therapies could prevent this increase.Interpretation: The frequency of LUTS increased in cases where the ureteral stent was applied and discomfort continued as long as the stent stayed in the body.

Objective: The study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of ureteral wall thickness (UWT) and stone-related parameters for medical expulsive therapy (MET) success with an alpha blocker in pediatric upper ureteral stones. Patients and Methods: A total of 35 children receiving MET ureteral stones (<10 mm) were evaluated. Patients were divided into 2 subgroups where MET was successful in 18 children (51.4%) and unsuccessful in 17 children (48.6%). Prior to management, stone size, stone density (in Hounsfield unit), degree of hydronephrosis, and UWT were evaluated with patient demographics and recorded. The possible predictive value of these parameters in success rates and time to stone expulsion were evaluated in a comparative manner between the 2 groups. Results: The overall mean patient age and stone size values were 5.40 ± 0.51 years and 6.24 ± 0.28 mm, respectively. Regarding the predictive values of these parameters for the success of MET, while stone size and UWT were found to be highly predictive for MET success, patients age, body mass index, stone density, and degree of hydronephrosis had no predictive value on this aspect. Conclusions: Our findings indicated that some stone and anatomical factors may be used to predict the success of MET in pediatric ureteral stones in an effective manner. With this approach, unnecessary use of these drugs that may cause a delay in removing the stone will be avoided, and the possible adverse effects of obstruction as well as stone-related clinical symptoms could be minimized.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the safety of ultrasonography-guided (UG) puncture and fluoroscopy-guided (FG) upper pole access (UPA) in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Methods: Consecutive patients with a solitary UPA were enrolled into the study from 2012 to 2020 and analyzed in a retrospective manner. In total, 177 patients were divided into 2 groups according to the method during the puncture phase of the access: FG (n = 105) and UG (n = 72). The UG and FG groups were compared in terms of complications (i.e., pleural injury and blood transfusion rate) and surgical outcomes. Results: Gender, side, grade of hydronephrosis, type of access (i.e., supracostal vs. subcostal), Guy’s stone score, age, stone diameter, skin-to-stone distance, and stone density were similar in the 2 groups (p > 0.05). Only in 25.9% of cases, UPA was done using a subcostal approach. The overall complication rates were similar between the groups (p > 0.178). For the UG and FG groups, the rate of pleural injury (8.5 vs. 4.1%) and the blood transfusion rate (8.5 vs. 2.8%) were also similar (p > 0.05). The fluoroscopy time and mean hemoglobin drop were significantly lower in the UG group than in the FG group (134.2 vs. 82.2 s, respectively, p = 0.001; 20.8 ± 9.8 vs. 16.8 ± 7.9 g/L, respectively, p = 0.001). Stone-free rate (SFR) was also similar in the FG and UG groups (77.1 vs. 75.0%, respectively, p = 0.742). Conclusion: While it is commonly expected that the complication rates are lower in UG puncture for UPA in PCNL than they are in FG puncture, the present study failed to show this difference. However, the radiation exposure time seemed to be lower in UG puncture than FG puncture and had a similar stone-free rate (SFR) for UPA in PCNL.

We evaluated the effectiveness of sildenafil citrate on lower urinary system symptoms (LUTS) by using symptom score scales. We also evaluated whether or not the presence of asymptomatic inflammatory prostatitis had an effect on the alteration in the symptom scores. A total of 36 male patients were included in the study. For all the cases, ‘International Prostate Symptom Score’ (IPSS), ‘National Health Institute Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index’ (NIH-CPSI) and ‘International Index of Erectile Function’ (IIEF-5) were investigated and the scores were calculated in the first visit. Sildenafil citrate was given for 30 days and at the second visit IPSS, NIH-CPSI and IIEF-5 scores were once more analyzed. Afterwards, the alterations of the scores between visits were statistically compared. Mean age of the 36 cases included in the study was 59.03±1.35. When the alterations in parameters of first visit and second visit were evaluated, we found a statistically significant increase in IIEF-5 and a statistically significant decrease in IPSS, IPSS-QOL (Quality of Life). In addition, when the cases were divided into two groups with and without asymptomatic inflammatory prostatitis, in the cases with asymptomatic inflammatory prostatitis, sildenafil citrate caused improvement only in ED, but had no effect on LUTS. Sildenafil citrate use in cases with LUTS and ED has an improving effect on LUTS as well as ED. However, in cases with asymptomatic inflammatory prostatitis, sildenafil citrate did not lead to an improvement in LUTS.