Abstract Objectives To understand the clinical relationship between lower limbs functions and the recovery of spontaneous voiding after an acute urinary retention (AUR) in older patients admitted to hospitals for non-urological causes using clinical parameters. Materials and Methods 56 adult patients (32 men; mean age: 77.9 ± 8.3 and 24 women; mean age 82.1 ± 4.6) with AUR were prospectively followed with validated Physical Performance Mobility Exam (PPME) instrument to evaluate the relationship between the recovery of mobility capacity and spontaneous voiding. After a short period of permanent bladder drainage patients started CIC along evaluation by PPME during hospitalization and at 7, 15, 30 60, 90, and 180 days of discharge. Mann-Whitney U, chi-square test and ANOVA tests were used. Results All patients were hospitalized for at least 15 days (Median 26.3 ± 4.1 days). Progressive improvement on mobility scale measured by PPME was observed after leaving ICU and along the initial 7 days of hospitalization but with a deterioration if hospitalization extends beyond 15 days (p<0.03). Prolonged hospital stay impairs mobility in all domains (p<0.05) except step-up and transfer skills (p<0.02) although a recovery rate on spontaneous voiding persistented. Restoration of spontaneous voiding was accompanied by improvement on mobility scale (p<0.02). Recovery of spontaneous voiding was markedly observed after discharging the hospital. All patients recovered spontaneous voiding until 6 months of follow-up. Conclusions Recovery to spontaneous voiding after acute urinary retention in the hospital setting may be anticipated by evaluation of lower limbs function measured by validated instruments.

Objectives Determine what happens to patients after unsuccessful SUI operations and to explore the reasons why these patients change doctors. Materials and Methods One hundred consecutive failed patients treated for SUI were interviewed about the exams requested after persistence of the incontinence as well as the reasons they abandoned their primary doctors through a structured questionnaire. Results Among the patients with cases of anterior colporrhaphy, bladder suspensions or slings, 34.3%, 13.7% and 8.3%, respectively, were not offered any further type of investigative procedures to clarify the failure. Urodynamic evaluations were recommended in 75% of failed slings, and 66.6% of the patients proceeded with these tests. In contrast, only 31% of patients with bladder suspensions and 40% of patients with anterior colporrhaphy were recommended for urodynamic investigations, and only 44.4% and 28.5% of them, respectively, proceeded with the option. Patients´ delusions were reinforced by the doctors’ attitude toward the investigations. Vacuous justifications and the lack of intention to seek improvement were the driving forces causing the patients to change doctors. Conclusion Unsuccessful patients are evaluated in a non-protocol form. Difficulty in clarifying the reasons for surgical failure and the disruption of the doctor-patient relationship are the main reasons why patients abandon them.

CONTEXTO: A profilaxia antibiótica nas ressecções transuretrais da próstata é uma prática regular e freqüente na clínica urológica. No entanto, seu efeito profilático e bactericida protetor pode ser contestado se procedimentos assépticos são utilizados na realização da cirurgia, sobretudo em pacientes com urina estéril. No caso de infecção urinária, a identificação dos germes para escolha do antibiótico adequado pode ser necessária. OBJETIVO: Verificar a eficácia da antibioticoprofilaxia em pacientes com urina estéril submetidos a ressecção transuretral de próstata. TIPO DE ESTUDO: Prospectivo num centro de referência de tratamento urológico, aberto. LOCAL: Hospital de referência terciária. PARTICIPANTES: 124 pacientes. VARIÁVEIS ESTUDADAS: 124 pacientes consecutivos foram randomicamente divididos em dois grupos para receber ou não antibioticoterapia profilática na ressecção transuretral de próstata. Cultura do meato uretral, urina, líquido irrigante e anti-séptico, além dos fragmentos de próstata ressecados foram analisados quanto a sensibilidade a antibióticos, escolhidos a critério do cirurgião, e determinada a partir de antibiograma com as cepas bacterianas identificadas nos sítios mencionados. RESULTADOS: Não se encontrou diferença estatisticamente significante na evolução clínica de ambos os grupos. Aqueles que receberam antibioticoprofilaxia apresentaram menor freqüência de cultura urinária positiva do que aqueles que não receberam profilaxia. No entanto, na observação da evolução clínica de ambos os grupos, o uso de antibiótico não mostrou qualquer benefício no que concerne à ocorrência de febre, positividade das culturas obtidas dos fragmentos de próstata ressecados ou episódios de bacteremia. 68 casos (57,1%) apresentaram cultura positiva do tecido prostático. Entretanto, não houve correlação entre a bactéria identificada a partir do tecido prostático e de outros locais, tais como meato, urina, líquido irrigante ou anti-séptico utilizado. Somente em seis casos foi encontrada a mesma bactéria no tecido prostático e na urina pós-operatória. Apenas em 15 casos (25%) do grupo antibiótico observou-se a sensibilidade esperada da bactéria identificada ao antibiótico utilizado. CONCLUSÃO: A profilaxia antibiótica em pacientes com urina estéril submetidos a ressecção transuretral de próstata poderia ser reavaliada, pois, na grande maioria das vezes, o antibiótico selecionado com finalidade profilática não apresenta especificadade às bactérias identificadas nos diversos sítios pesquisados.

CONTEXT: Antibiotic prophylaxis in transurethral resection of the prostate is a regular practice in urology. However, its prophylactic effect can be questioned when the antiseptic surgical technique is used. Nonetheless, urine culture-oriented antibiotic therapy is the gold standard for avoiding improper medication usage and bacterial resistance. OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy of antibiotic usage in patients with negative urine cultures, who were submitted to transurethral resection of the prostate. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective open labeled study. SETTING: Tertiary care referral hospital PARTICIPANTS: 124 consecutive patients, who were randomly divided into two groups to receive antibiotic prophylaxis or not. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Cultures from meatus, urine, irrigation and antiseptic fluid, and prostate tissue chips, were compared and analyzed for bacterial sensitivity to the antibiotic used, according to the surgeon's personal criteria. McLennan's test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference regarding clinical evolution was found between the groups that received or antibiotics or not. Statistical significance was found regarding the occurrence of positive urine cultures during the postoperative period for those not receiving antibiotics, but not in relation to fever, prostate chip culture or bacteremic episodes. Sixty-eight subjects (57.1%) presented positive prostatic tissue culture. There was no specific correlation between the recovered bacteria from the meatus, prostatic tissue chip and urine and the spectrum of the administered antibiotic. Six cases showed the same bacteria in the urine and prostatic tissue chip. Only fifteen cases (25%) in the antibiotic group showed the desired sensitivity directed to the collected bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients whose urine is sterile is debatable in patients who are candidates for transurethral resection of the prostate. Most of the time, the antibiotic agent used is not specific for any of the bacteria recovered from the various sources analyzed.

CONTEXTO: A incidência de linfocele em pacientes submetidos a transplante renal varia entre 0,6 e 18% e vários são os fatores relacionados à sua etiologia. A rejeição celular do aloenxerto renal tem sido descrita como um possível fator etiológico das linfoceles. OBJETIVO: Verificar a possível associação entre a ocorrência de linfocele e a rejeição celular aguda em transplante renais. TIPO DE ESTUDO: Estudo retrospectivo. AMOSTRA: 170 pacientes transplantados no período de março de 1992 a janeiro de 1997. LOCAL: Centro de referência hospitalar. RESULTADOS: Dos 19 pacientes que evoluíram com linfocele, 16 apresentaram pelo menos um episódio de rejeição celular aguda (84%), todos tratados com metilpredinisolona. A relação entre linfocele e rejeição foi estatisticamente significativa (p=0.04). O tratamento da linfocele foi realizado através de marsupialização peritoneal em 3 (15,3%) pacientes, drenagem percutânea em 7 (36.8%), marsupialização laparoscópica em 2 (10,5%) e tratamento conservador em 7 (36.8%). A evolução foi favorável em 15 (78.9%), 1 (5,3%) foi a óbito por causa não relacionada à linfocele e 3 (15,8%) perderam o enxerto devido a fatores imunológicos. O período médio de acompanhamento desssa casuística foi de 24,5 meses. CONCLUSÃO: A maior freqüência de rejeição celular aguda encontrada no presente estudo, em pacientes com linfocele, sugere uma possível relação causal entre essas duas entidades.

CONTEXT: The incidence of lymphocele after renal transplantation varies between 0.6 and 18% of cases, and many factors have been associated to its etiology. Cellular rejection of the kidney allograft has been described as a possible causal factor of lymphocele. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the possible relationship between lymphocele and acute cellular rejection. DESIGN: A retrospective study. SETTING: A referral hospital center. SAMPLE: 170 patients submitted to kidney transplantation from March 1992 to January 1997. A standard technique for renal transplantation was used. RESULTS: Of the 19 patients that developed lymphocele, 16 presented at least one episode of acute cell rejection (84%), and were treated with methylprednisolone. The relation between lymphocele and rejection was statistically significant (p = 0.04). Treatment of lymphocele consisted of peritoneal marsupialization in 3 patients (15.3%), percutaneous drainage in 7 (36.8%), laparascopic marsupialization in 2 (10.5%), and conservative treatment in 7 patients (36.8%). Evolution was favorable in 15 patients (78.9%), 1 patient (5.3%) died due to a cause unrelated to lymphocele, and 3 (15.8%) lost the graft due to immunological factors. The average follow-up period was 24.5 months. CONCLUSION: The high incidence of acute cell rejection in patients with lymphocele suggests a possible causal relationship between both conditions.