| 1 |
Guideline [2006 technology monitoring report: clinical practice guideline: use of FDG-PET in kidney, prostate, testis and bladder cancers] 2007
Bourguet P, Planchamp F, Montravers F, Vincendeau S, Anonymous00058, Anonymous00059. · Comité rédacteur SOR, INCA, FNCLCC, La Ligue, FHF FNCHRU, FFC et AFU, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes, France. · Prog Urol. · Pubmed #17489312 No free full text.
This publication has no abstract.
|
| 2 |
Guideline [Recommendation for clinical practice: use of PET-FDG in cancer of the kidney, prostate, testicles, and the urinary bladder] free! 2006
Bourguet P, Planchamp F, Montravers F, Vincendeau S, Courbon F, Edeline V, Helal BO, Rossi D, Villers A, Anonymous00504, Anonymous00505, Anonymous00506, Anonymous00507, Anonymous00508, Anonymous00509, Anonymous00510, Anonymous00511. · Centre Eugène-Marquis, Rennes. · Bull Cancer. · Pubmed #17191352 links to free full text
This publication has no abstract.
|
| 3 |
Article [Intraperitoneal bladder rupture during transurethral resection of the prostate] 2003
Morin G, Vincendeau S, Manunta A, Guillé F, Lobel B, Patard JJ. · Service d'Urologie, CHU Pontchaillou, 35033 Rennes, France. · Prog Urol. · Pubmed #12765070 No free full text.
Abstract: Bladder explosions are a rare complication of endoscopic surgery caused by massive cellular hydrolysis during electrocoagulation, releasing a mixture of gases that becomes explosive in contact with oxygen. Oxygen may enter the bladder as a result of manipulation of the resector, incorrect use of the Ellick evacuator bulb or introduction of air bubbles via the irrigation tubing. This risk can therefore be limited by taking certain precautions. The authors report a new case of intraperitoneal bladder rupture during transurethral resection of the prostate.
|
| 4 |
Article [PSA: the difficult position of general practitioners between patients and urologists] 2003
Vincendeau S, Abi Moussa M, Manunta A, Patard JJ, Guillé F, Lobel B. · Service d'Urologie, CHU Pontchaillou, rue Henri Le Guilloux, 35033 Rennes, France. · Prog Urol. · Pubmed #12765060 No free full text.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the reasons for ordering PSA assay and delayed referral to an urologist following detection of elevated PSA in general practice. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Retrospective study of 200 patients referred to the department by general practitioners for elevated PSA from September 2000 to April 2001. RESULTS: The median age was 67 years (range: 52 to 87). The median PSA was 7.9 ng/ml (range: 4.1 to 897). Patients were referred after 1 to 5 PSA assays (mean: 1.6) with a median interval after discovery of elevated PSA of 1.7 months. The referral time was greater than 6 months for 52 patients (26%) and 31 patients (15.6%) were referred after more than two PSA assays were found to be elevated. PSA assay was ordered in the absence of symptoms or abnormal digital rectal examination in 43% of patients over the age of 70 years. CONCLUSION: Prostate cancer screening is regularly performed in general practice. The information given to general practitioners, faced with a well informed population, appears to be insufficiently clear, as PSA assay is sometimes incorrectly ordered or interpreted.
|
|
|