STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and outcome of vertebroplasty compared with unipedicular and bipedicular kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures in terms of pain, functional capacity and height restoration rates. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The vertebroplasty procedure was first performed in 1984 for the treatment of a hemangioma at the C2 vertebra. Kyphoplasty was first performed in 1998 and includes vertebral height restoration in addition to using inflation balloons and high-viscosity cement. Both are efficacious, safe and long-lasting procedures. However, controversy still exists about pain relief, improvement in functional capacity, quality of life and height restoration the superiority of these procedures and assessment of appropriate and specific indications of one over the other remains undefined. METHODS: Between 2004 and 2011, 296 patients suffering from osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture underwent 433 vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty procedures. Visual analogue scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and height restoration rates were used to evaluate the results. RESULTS: Mean height restoration rate was 24.16%+/-1.27% in the vertebroplasty group, 24.25%+/-1.28% in the unipedicular kyphoplasty group and 37.05%+/-1.21% in the bipedicular kyphoplasty group. VAS and ODI scores improved all of the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are both effective in providing pain relief and improvement in functional capacity and quality of life after the procedure, but the bipedicular kyphoplasty procedure has a further advantage in terms of height restoration when compared to unipedicular kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty procedures.
Fractures, Compression* ; Hemangioma ; Humans ; Inflation, Economic ; Kyphoplasty* ; Osteoporosis ; Quality of Life ; Retrospective Studies ; Spine ; Vertebroplasty*

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common entrapment neuropathy. Although its etiology is unknown, certain conditions are commonly associated with CTS, such as obesity, arthritis, hypothyroidism, diabetes mellitus, trauma, mass lesions, amyloidosis, and sarcoidosis. We aimed to determine the association between metabolic syndrome and CTS, and we compared the severity of CTS between patients with diabetes (and no concomitant metabolic syndrome) and patients with metabolic syndrome. METHODS: Two hundred patients with a clinically and electrophysiological confirmed diagnosis of CTS were included in the study. Their demographic characteristics and severity of CTS were analyzed according to the presence or the absence of metabolic syndrome. Differences in the electrophysiological findings were evaluated between the following four groups: 1) metabolic syndrome alone (n=52), 2) diabetes alone (n=20), 3) combined metabolic syndrome and diabetes (n=44), and 4) no metabolic syndrome or diabetes (n=84). RESULTS: CTS was more severe in the patients with metabolic syndrome than those without this syndrome. The electrophysiological findings were worse in patients with metabolic syndrome alone than in those with diabetes alone and those without diabetes and metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: CTS appears to be more severe in patients with metabolic syndrome than patients with diabetes. Diabetes is one of the well-known risk factors for CTS, but other components of metabolic syndrome may have a greater effect on the severity of CTS.
Amyloidosis ; Arthritis ; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome* ; Diabetes Mellitus ; Diagnosis ; Electrophysiology ; Humans ; Hypothyroidism ; Obesity ; Risk Factors ; Sarcoidosis

Purpose: Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and Methods: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/ uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available. Conclusions This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.