Enter Your Search:
Results 1-3 (3)
Go to page number:
Select a Filter Below
BMC Urology (1)
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience (1)
ISRN Urology (1)
Erber, Barbara (3)
Miller, Kurt (2)
Schrader, Mark (2)
Baumunk, Daniel (1)
Busch, Jonas (1)
Erber, Joachim (1)
Friedersdorff, Frank (1)
Hinz, Stefan (1)
Hoffmann, Ivan (1)
Jentzmik, Florian (1)
Kempkensteffen, Carsten (1)
Lingnau, Anja (1)
Magheli, Ahmed (1)
Mujagic, Samir (1)
Sarkander, Jana (1)
Schostak, Martin (1)
Schrader, Andres Jan (1)
Weikert, Steffen (1)
Year of Publication
Did you mean:
Laparoscopic and open postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients with advanced testicular cancer – a single center analysis
The open approach represents the gold standard for postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (O-PCLND) in patients with residual testicular cancer. We analyzed laparoscopic postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (L-PCLND) and O-PCLND at our institution.
Patients underwent either L-PCLND (n = 43) or O-PCLND (n = 24). Categorical and continuous variables were compared using the Fisher exact test and Mann–Whitney U test respectively. Overall survival was evaluated with the log-rank test.
Primary histology was embryonal cell carcinomas (18 patients), pure seminoma (2 cases) and mixed NSGCTs (47 patients). According to the IGCCCG patients were categorized into “good”, “intermediate” and “poor prognosis” disease in 55.2%, 14.9% and 20.8%, respectively. Median operative time for L-PCLND was 212 min and 232 min for O-PCLND (p = 0.256). Median postoperative duration of drainage and hospital stay was shorter after L-PCLND (0.0 vs. 3.5 days; p < 0.001 and 6.0 vs. 11.5 days; p = 0.002). Intraoperative complications occurred in 21.7% (L-PCLND) and 38.0% (O-PCLND) of cases with 19.5% and 28.5% of Clavien Grade III complications for L-PCLND and O-PCLND, respectively (p = 0.224). Significant blood loss (>500 ml) was almost equally distributed (8.6% vs. 14.2%: p = 0.076). No significant differences were observed for injuries of major vessels and postoperative complications (p = 0.758; p = 0.370). Tumor recurrence occurred in 8.6% following L-PCLND and in 14.2% following O-PCLND with a mean disease-free survival of 76.6 and 89.2 months, respectively. Overall survival was 83.3 and 95.0 months for L-PCNLD and O-PCLND, respectively (p = 0.447).
L-PCLND represents a safe surgical option for well selected patients at an experienced center.
Advanced testicular cancer; Postchemotherapy; Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection; Laparoscopy; Metastasis
Morbidity and Quality of Life in Bladder Cancer Patients following Cystectomy and Urinary Diversion: A Single-Institution Comparison of Ileal Conduit versus Orthotopic Neobladder
Schrader, Andres Jan
Objective. To evaluate and compare noncontinent and continent urinary diversion after radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer. Methods. A total of 301 patients submitted to radical cystectomy at the Charité-University Hospital Berlin from 1993 to 2007 including 146 with an ileal conduit and 115 with an ileal neobladder. Clinical and pathological data as well as oncological outcome were retrospectively analyzed and compared. Quality of life was analyzed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BLM30 questionnaires. Results. 69.1% and 69.6% of all patients who received an ileal conduit and ileal neobladder, respectively, developed early complications. The two groups differed significantly concerning the occurrence of postoperative ileus (P = 0.02) favoring patients who received an ileal conduit but not with regard to any other early-onset complication evaluated. Patients with ileal neobladder had a significantly better global health status and quality of life (P = 0.02), better physical functioning (P = 0.02), but also a higher rate of diarrhoea (P = 0.004). Conclusion. Cystectomy with any type of diversion remains a complication-prone surgery. Even if the patient groups are not homogeneous in all respects, there are many arguments in favor of the ileal neobladder as the urinary diversion of choice.
Sucrose Acceptance and Different Forms of Associative Learning of the Honey Bee (Apis Mellifera L.) in the Field and Laboratory
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
The experiments analyze different forms of learning and 24-h retention in the field and in the laboratory in bees that accept sucrose with either low (≤3%) or high (≥30% or ≥50%) concentrations. In the field we studied color learning at a food site and at the hive entrance. In the laboratory olfactory conditioning of the proboscis extension response (PER) was examined. In the color learning protocol at a feeder, bees with low sucrose acceptance thresholds (≤3%) show significantly faster and better acquisition than bees with high thresholds (≥50%). Retention after 24 h is significantly different between the two groups of bees and the choice reactions converge. Bees with low and high acceptance thresholds in the field show no differences in the sucrose sensitivity PER tests in the laboratory. Acceptance thresholds in the field are thus a more sensitive behavioral measure than PER responsiveness in the laboratory. Bees with low acceptance thresholds show significantly better acquisition and 24-h retention in olfactory learning in the laboratory compared to bees with high thresholds. In the learning protocol at the hive entrance bees learn without sucrose reward that a color cue signals an open entrance. In this experiment, bees with high sucrose acceptance thresholds showed significantly better learning and reversal learning than bees with low thresholds. These results demonstrate that sucrose acceptance thresholds affect only those forms of learning in which sucrose serves as the reward. The results also show that foraging behavior in the field is a good predictor for learning behavior in the field and in the laboratory.
Apis mellifera; sucrose acceptance; color learning; olfactory PER conditioning; retention; hive entrance learning; reward value
Results 1-3 (3)
Go to page number:
Remove citation from clipboard
Add citation to clipboard
This will clear all selections from your clipboard. Do you wish proceed?
Clipboard is full! Please remove an item and try again.
PubMed Central Canada is a service of the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
(CIHR) working in partnership with the National Research Council's
Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information
in cooperation with the
National Center for Biotechnology Information
U.S. National Library of Medicine
(NCBI/NLM). It includes content provided to the
PubMed Central International archive
by participating publishers.