Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier Masson
Résumé : International audience
Introduction. - Temocillin is an alternative to treat urinary tract infections with bacteria producing extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL). The objective is to evaluate the use of temocillin in urinary tract infections. Materials and methods. - A systematic review of literature was carried out according to PRISMA criteria. All national and international recommendations have been reviewed regarding the indication of the use of temocillin in urology. Data collection on the use of temocillin in urinary tract infection has been performed from the Cochrane, LILACS and the Medline database. The following keywords were used: temocillin, extended spectrum. beta-lactamase, urinary tract infections, urine, prostate, epididymis, testis, diffusion, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics. The selection was based on the methodology, language of publication (English/French), relevance to the topic and date of publication of the articles collected. The endpoint was to provide exhaustive scientific information allowing urologists to use this antibiotic in febrile urinary infections. Results. - Bacteria producing ESBL has a relatively high susceptible to temocillin, ranging from 61 % to 90 %. These rates would allow its use in probabilistic. The dosage recommended is currently, in the normo-renal patient, 4 g per day by intermittent infusion or continuously after a loading dose of 2g. Some studies argue, particularly in case of difficult clinical situations or obese patients, for administration of high doses (6 g/24 h) rather continuous infusion. There is no evident relationship between high doses and side effects. With an excellent urinary and prostatic diffusion, temocilllin might be recommend for the treatment of ESBL prostatitis. Conclusion. - Temocillin is known to have good urinary and prostatic diffusion. According to our results, this antibiotics is now a reliable alternative for the treatment of documented ESBL urinary tract infections. (C) 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
ISSN: 1166-7087

hal-01659245
https://hal-univ-rennes1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01659245
DOI : 10.1016/j.purol.2017.07.242
PUBMED : 28869169

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier Masson
Résumé : National audience
o abstract
ISSN: 1166-7087

hal-01477211
https://hal-univ-rennes1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01477211
DOI : 10.1016/j.purol.2016.07.209
PUBMED : 27969303

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Springer Verlag
Résumé : International audience
We aimed to assess the impact of a postoperative drainage after RPN. A retrospective multicentric study included RPN performed at eight centers between 2010 and 2014. Three centers stopped using postoperative drainage early in their RPN experience, whereas other institutions systematically left a drain. Preoperative characteristics, complication rates, need for postoperative imaging or procedure (surgical or radiological) and length of hospital stay were compared between the two groups [drainage (D) and no drainage (ND)]. Among 636 RPNs, 140 were done without drainage (22 %). In the ND group, surgeons were more experienced (> 50 cases: 55.7 vs. 15.1 %; p < 0.0001), and tumors were more complex (RENAL score: 7.6 vs. 6.5; p < 0.0001). Complication rates were similar in both groups (21.9 vs. 20.2 %; p = 0.67). The omission of postoperative drainage did not increase requirement of CT scan (RR = 1.03; 95 % CI 0.64-1.67). Length of hospital stay was shorter in the ND group (4.5 vs. 5.5 days; p = 0.007). There were six urinary fistulas: four in the D group (0.8 %) and two in the ND group (1.4 %; p = 0.49). A CT scan was done to confirm the diagnosis of fistula in every case. In multivariate analysis, the omission of drainage was not associated with increased need of postoperative CT scan or major complications but was a predictor of decreased length of stay. The omission of postoperative drainage does not seem to increase the risk of postoperative complications and could safely be omitted after RPN.
ISSN: 0724-4983

hal-01361502
https://hal-univ-rennes1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01361502
DOI : 10.1007/s00345-015-1721-2
PUBMED : 26511751