Comparison of yogurt, soybean, casein, and amino acid–based diets in children with persistent diarrhea

Although previous studies have shown successful treatment of persistent diarrhea (PD) with the use of yogurt-based diets, some recent ones speculate the need of special formulas for the nutritional management of PD complicated cases. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that the consumption of 3 lactose-free diets, with different degrees of complexity, is associated with lower stool output and shorter duration of diarrhea when compared with the use of a yogurt-based one on the nutritional management of PD. A total of 154 male infants, aged between 1 and 30 months, with PD and with or without dehydration, were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups. Throughout the study, the patients were placed in a metabolic unit; their body weights and intakes of oral rehydration solution, water, and formula diets, in addition to outputs of stool, urine, and vomit, were measured and recorded at 24-hour intervals. Four different diets were used in this study: diet 1, yogurt-based formula; diet 2, soy-based formula; diet 3, hydrolyzed protein-based formula; and diet 4, amino acid–based formula. Throughout the study, only these formula diets were fed to the children. The data showed that children fed the yogurt-based diet (diet 1) or the amino acid–based diet (diet 4) had a significant reduction in stool output and in the duration of diarrhea. The use of an inexpensive and worldwide-available yogurt-based diet is recommended as the first choice for the nutritional management of mild to moderate PD. For the few complicated PD cases, when available, a more complex amino acid–based diet should be reserved for the nutritional management of these unresponsive and severe presentations. Soy-based or casein-based diets do not offer any specific advantage or benefits and do not seem to have a place in the management of PD.     

Comparison of TURP, TUVRP, and HoLEP

Since the first transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) was performed by Guyon at the Necker Hospital in Paris in 1901, this treatment modality has replaced open prostatectomy as the procedure of choice for more than 95% of patients. TURP has been used in surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and remains the gold standard treatment. Transurethral vapor resection of the prostate (TUVRP) and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) are new treatment modalities for the treatment of BPH. Each procedure has its own advantages and disadvantages. Availability of instruments, surgical expertise, and specific indications for a particular procedure are of utmost importance for successful outcome, with minimal morbidity. TURP can be either monopolar or bipolar, using thin or thick loop. Bipolar TURP is associated with less bleeding and less chances of dilutional hyponatremia. TUVRP, using a thick wedge loop, causes vaporization and resection of the prostate, and is associated with less bleeding and short operative time. HoLEP is another effective alternative for the surgical treatment of BPH. The holmium laser possesses the ideal combination of cutting and coagulation; however, it has a learning curve.