ABSTRACT Objective: To generate high-quality data comparing the clinical efficacy and safety profile between monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (M-TURP) and bipolar plasmakinetic resection of the prostate (PK-TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and Methods: Prospective, randomized, single-blinded study conducted in a tertiary-care public institution (Dec/2014-Aug/2016). Inclusion criteria: prostate of <80g in patients with drug-refractory lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), complications derived from BPH, or both. Exclusion criteria: a history of pelvic surgery/radiotherapy, neurogenic bladder dysfunction or documented/suspected prostate carcinoma. Treatment efficacy evaluated at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Efficacy outcomes: international prostate symptom score (IPSS), quality-of-life (QoL) score, international index of erectile function-5 (IIEF-5), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine (PVRU) volume, and prostate volume (PV). Complications and sequelae also assessed. Comparisons performed with parametric/non-parametric tests. Results: Out of the 100 hundred patients, 84 qualified for the analysis (45 M-TURP/39 PK-TURP). No significant differences found in baseline characteristics or operative data, except for a longer operative time in PK-TURP (MD:7.9min; 95%CI:0.13-15.74; p=0.04). No differences found in IPSS, Qmax or PVRU volume. QoL score at 12 months was higher in PK-TURP (MD:0,9points; 95%CI:0.18-1.64; p=0.01). No differences in sexual function, PV, complications or sequelae were found. This study is “rigorous” (Jadadscale) and has a low risk of bias (Cochrane-Handbook). Conclusions: Based on this controlled trial, there is not significant variation in effectiveness and safety between M-TURP and PK-TURP for the treatment of BPH. The small difference in QoL between PK-TURP and M-TURP at the one-year follow-up is not perceivable by the patients and, therefore, not clinically relevant.

Objectives: The primary objective of this study is to perform a systematic review of the therapeutic management of primary VUR in pediatric urology. Methods: A systematic review of the articles published in all of the available databases has been performed, including scientific evidence-based medicine criteria. Inclusion criteria concerning basic quality of the articles were considered essential, as well as exclusion criteria to be able to reject the articles. Results: A critic reading of selected articles, and statistical study of grouped data was performed according to the type of treatment and benefits contributed by each treatment, and also to their undesirable effects. Conclusions: The following Conclusions were drawn from the results obtained and from the analysis of the texts. Both medical and surgical treatment present similar effectiveness concerning resolution of grades I, II and III VUR, and the former one is the recommended initial treatment following diagnosis. Endoscopic treatment is exactly as effective as open surgery for grades I, II and III with fewer undesirable secondary effects. There are no differences concerning the efficacy of the different injected substances. Not enough evidences exist for degrees IV and V that may recommend or advise against any of the treatments. In any degree of VUR, open surgical treatment is superior as far as medical treatment is concerned only regarding the number of acute pyelonephritis episodes during follow-up. This con-clusion cannot be applied on endoscopic treatment.

Objetivo: El propósito principal de nuestro trabajo fue realizar una Revisión Sistemática (RS) sobre el manejo terapéutico del Reflujo Vésico Ureteral Primario (RVUP). Métodos: Para ello se ha realizado una RS de los artículos aparecidos en todas las bases de datos disponibles, aplicando unos criterios de inclusión y exclusión de calidad mínima imprescindible. Resultados: Se ha realizado lectura crítica de los artículos seleccionados y el estudio estadístico correspondiente de los datos agrupados, según el tipo de tratamiento y beneficios aportados, así como sus efectos indeseables. Conclusiones: El tratamiento médico y el quirúrgico presentan la misma efectividad en la resolución de los grados I, II y III de RVUP, recomendándose el primero de ellos como tratamiento inicial tras el diagnóstico. El manejo endoscópico es igual de efectivo que la cirugía abierta, con menores efectos secundarios, sin haber encontrado diferencias entre las distintas sustancias analizadas para la inyección. Para los reflujos de alto grado IV y V no existen evidencias suficientes que aconsejen o desaconsejen cualquiera de los tratamientos. El tratamiento quirúrgico abierto, para cualquier grado de RVU, sólo presenta superioridad con respecto al tratamiento médico en el número de episodios de pielonefritis aguda durante el seguimiento. Esta afirmación no es posible aplicarla para el tratamiento endoscópico.

Objectives: To review the value of PSA kinetics in the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. Methods: Review of the literature through a Medline search. Conclusions: A pre-tretament PSAV value 2ng/ml/yr is a risk factor for increased mortality from prostate cancer after surgery or radiation therapy. A PSADT<3ms is indicative of reduced survival after treatment. For patients with PSA recurrence after surgery a PSADT10 is more likely associated with local recurrence.

Objetivo: Evaluar el papel de la cinética del PSA en el diagnóstico y prosnóstico del cáncer de próstata. Métodos: Revision sistemática de la literatura a través de Medline. Resultados: Una cifra de PSAV 2 ng/ml/año se asocia a una mayor mortalidad por cáncer de próstata tras cirugía o radioterapia. Un PSADT<3 meses tras el tratamiento confiere un mal pronóstico y un PSADT10 meses tras fallo bioquímico después cirugía sitúa a la recidiva local como causa más probable.