IJU this issue
IJU this issue
Version of Record online: 24 JAN 2014
© 2014 The Japanese Urological Association
International Journal of Urology
Volume 21, Issue 2, page 121, February 2014
How to Cite
Nonomura, N. (2014), IJU this issue. International Journal of Urology, 21: 121. doi: 10.1111/iju.12391
- Issue online: 24 JAN 2014
- Version of Record online: 24 JAN 2014
It is my great pleasure to make some comments for “IJU this issue”.
This issue includes 13 Original Articles, three Short Communications, two Case Reports, five Letters to the Editor and a Procedure. No Review Article is included in this issue.
Among the 13 Original Articles, there are two papers relating to renal cancer. Along with the availability of robotic surgical systems, laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (PN) for larger sized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is becoming easier to carry out than in the past. However, we have to know the long-term oncological and functional outcome of PN for larger sized RCC. Meskawi et al. (Montreal, Canada) reported that long-term cancer control after PN is comparable to that after radical nephrectomy for T1b RCC. This article suggests the possibility that the indication of PN will be extended to middle-sized renal tumors. In the second Original Article, Sato et al. (Osaka, Japan) presented the importance of the microvessel area of immature vessels in RCC as a prognostic factor. They showed that microvessel area is more specific to tumor lesions than microvessel density. One Short Communication by Omae et al. (Tokyo, Japan) raised the question about the effectiveness of mannitol use during open partial nephrectomy. This article is quite impressive, though it is a retrospective study.
Roghmann et al. (Herne, Germany) reviewed more than 500 cases of radical cystectomies in their own institute, and reported that the Charlson Comorbidity Index and body mass index might help us to predict the risk of high-grade complications after radical cystectomy. The Editorial Comment to this article by Schiavina et al. (Bologna, Italy) is quite relevant, and it pointed out the difficulties in taking surgeons' experience into consideration.
There are two articles relating to radical prostatectomy. Brunocilla et al. (Bologna, Italy) reported the importance of the preservation of the smooth muscular internal sphincter and the proximal urethra during retropubic radical prostatectomy for early recovery of urinary continence by a prospective case–control study. According to this article, 75% of the preserved cases recovered urinary continence as early as 7 days after surgery. This paper should have been submitted to an audio-visual journal for a more detailed understanding. Jeong et al. (Seoul, Korea) carried out a prospective randomized trial of the use of tamsulosin after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) to examine the impact on acute urinary retention after early removal of a urethral catheter. Tamsulosin was shown to have a greater impact on the prevention of acute urinary retention after RALP than the experience of the surgeon. The study using functional MRI by Krhut et al. (Ostrava, Czech Republic) might suggest the usefulness of brain imaging to see lower urinary function.
Two articles regarding urethroplasty using buccal mucosal graft by Aldaqadossi et al. (Fayoum, Egypt) and Mellon and Bihrle (Indianapolis, USA) showed beneficial features of various techniques of urethroplasty.
One of the case reports in this issue by Koguchi et al. (Sagamihara, Japan) showed the possible risk of dissemination by holmium laser enucleation for prostate cancer. Together with the literature review, this case report is very suggestive as a first report of bone dissemination after holmium laser enucleation. According to the Editorial Comments to this case report, it cannot be concluded that dissemination of prostate cancer cells during transurethral resection is due to mechanical manipulation.
One Letter to the Editor by Nishikawa et al. (Kobe, Japan) reported an interesting case in which three histologically different renal cancers concurrently occurred in the same kidney. This case stimulates the possible hypothesis that there could be some abnormality in the DNA damage repair system.