Efficacy and Feasibility of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation in the Treatment of Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Background

Refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) includes AML includes failure of disease to respond to standard induction chemotherapy, relapse within 6 months after first CR, and 2 or more relapses. The outcome of these patients is usually very poor; only a small proportion can be rescued by allogenic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of allo-HSCT in patients with refractory AML.

Management of orthopedic oncology patients during coronavirus pandemic

The new measures implemented in hospitals also altered the operation of orthopedics and traumatology departments. The main purpose of this article is to discuss how orthopedic oncology clinics should be organized during the pandemic and to present the process management scheme for patients requiring orthopedic surgery, including trauma surgery, from diagnosis to treatment, together with our experiences. Instead of thinking about the global emergence of the epidemic, it is time to act decisively. At first glance, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and orthopedics may seem to be unrelated disciplines, but the provision of healthcare services to patients who require them proves that these two fields are parts of the same whole. Our experiences in treating neutropenic, lymphocytopenic, and chemotherapy patients seem to have proven beneficial during this process. We operated on 10 biopsy patients, 15 primary bone sarcomas, 9 soft tissue sarcomas, and 82 trauma patients within this time frame. Only three patients were suspected to have COVID-19 before admission. The early identification, strict isolation, and effective treatment of these patients prevented any nosocomial infections and disease-related comorbidities. This success is the result of the multidisciplinary cooperation of the Ministry of Health, our hospital, and our clinic.     

Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cm

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of RIRS and PNL in lower pole stones ≥2 cm. Materials and and Methods: A total of 109 patients who underwent PNL or RIRS for solitary lower pole stone between April 2009 and December 2012, were retrospectively analyzed. Lower pole stone was diagnosed with CT scan. Stone size was assessed as the longest axis of the stone. All patients were informed about the advantages, disadvantages and probable complications of both PNL and RIRS before the selection of the procedure. Patients decided the surgery type by themselves without being under any influences and written informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to the surgery. Patients were divided into two groups according to the patients’ preference of surgery type. Group 1 consisted of 77 patients who underwent PNL and Group 2 consisted of 32 patients treated with RIRS. Stone free statuses, postoperative complications, operative time and hospitalization time were compared in both groups.

Results

There was no statistical significance between the two groups in mean age, stone size, stone laterality, mean follow-up periods and mean operative times. In PNL group, stone-free rate was 96.1% at first session and 100% after the additional procedure. In Group 2, stone-free rate was 90.6% at the first procedure and 100% after the additional procedure. The final stone-free rates and operative times were similar in both groups.

Conclusions

RIRS should be an effective treatment alternative to PNL in lower pole stones larger than 2 cm, especially in selected patients.