Intraperitoneal Bladder Injury – A Conservative Approach

Iatrogenic bladder injuries with Intra-peritoneal extravasations are standardly managed surgically. However, we are presenting a case of iatrogenic intra-peritoneal bladder injury which developed after an emergency caesarean section that was managed successfully by conservative therapy. The trial of conservative approach may prove beneficial to minimize the chances of any invasive interventions in such cases. Bladder injuries are of two types namely intra-peritoneal and extra-peritoneal. Of which, extra-peritoneal is most common type.1 Bladder laceration happens during separation of bladder from uterine cervix during caesarean sections and abdominal hysterectomies.2 Usually bladder injuries are identified intra-operatively and managed on table. If diagnosis is made post-operatively, then management becomes challenging due to non-specific clinical features, exposure to radiation, sepsis due to urinary extravasation and prolonged hospital stay, psychological stress to both patient and surgeon. The clinical features suspicious of bladder injury are abdomen distension, urinary ascites, blood-stained urine, abdominal pain, paralytic ileus, fever and deranged renal parameters.3 Extra-peritoneal and intra-peritoneal bladder ruptures are treated differently. According to American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines, Intraperitoneal bladder injury needs surgical repair. There are limited case reports in literature about conservative management of small intra-peritoneal bladder lacerations. This is a case report of one such intra-peritoneal bladder injury treated with non-operative approach.

Serenoa Repens (Saw Palmetto) for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS): The Evidence for Efficacy and Safety of Lipidosterolic Extracts. Part II

Part I of this 3-part series provided the groundwork for understanding the role of a standardized lipidosterolic extract of Serenoa repens (LSESr) in the treatment of LUTS. It documented that a treatment having a high therapeutic index (i.e., a ratio of benefit to adverse reactions) is a critical need in the demographic context of a rapidly growing elder population. Part I described the clinical symptomatology of LUTS and how it is quantified. A critique of the reports from four authoritative bodies: the European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy (ESCOP), Cochrane 2012, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the AUA (American Urological Association) was presented. The foundation above then fine-tuned our search to require (a) consistent evaluability criteria, (b) the quantification of clinical findings, (c) the need to focus on studies employing a standardized LSESr product meeting the fatty acid profile set forth by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Pharmacopeia and (d) a global assessment of scientific investigations published in all languages and not limited to only English. With the above four constraints, “new” findings about LSESr vs. LUTS are presented. How did the search strategy and selection criteria lead to new understandings about the role of LSESr vs. LUTS? How safe is LSESr in contrast to its counterpart prescription drugs? Of the proposed major mechanisms of action of LSESr (e.g., 5-alpha reductase inhibition and anti-inflammatory activity), what are the key points? After initiating treatment with LSESr, when is clinical improvement seen? How durable is LSESr in ameliorating LUTS? Can LSESr prevent the progression of BPH?

Serenoa repens (Saw Palmetto) for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS): The Evidence for Efficacy and Safety of Lipidosterolic Extracts. Part II

Part I of this 3-part series provided the groundwork for understanding the role of a standardized lipidosterolic extract of Serenoa repens (LSESr) in the treatment of LUTS. It documented that a treatment having a high therapeutic index (i.e., a ratio of benefit to adverse reactions) is a critical need in the demographic context of a rapidly growing elder population. Part I described the clinical symptomatology of LUTS and how it is quantified. A critique of the reports from four authoritative bodies: the European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy (ESCOP), Cochrane 2012, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the AUA (American Urological Association) was presented. The foundation above then fine-tuned our search to require (a) consistent evaluability criteria, (b) the quantification of clinical findings, (c) the need to focus on studies employing a standardized LSESr product meeting the fatty acid profile set forth by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Pharmacopeia and (d) a global assessment of scientific investigations published in all languages and not limited to only English. Part II details the following “new” findings when LSESr vs. LUTS is examined with the above constraints.