High inguinal orchiectomy is the standard initial treatment for suspected testicular carcinoma. Nonstandard surgical approaches (scrotal violations), including scrotal orchiectomy, open testicular biopsy and fine needle aspiration, have historically been condemned as significantly compromising patient prognosis. Patients with scrotal violation are often subjected to potentially morbid or disfiguring local therapies. In addition, patients with scrotal violations are usually disqualified from surveillance protocols.A review was conducted of all published series of testicular cancer patients in whom scrotal violation occurred. A meta-analysis was then performed to choose a subset for critical analysis on the effect of scrotal violation on patient prognosis. Of 1,182 cases included in the final analysis scrotal violation occurred in 206. The rates for local recurrence, distant recurrence and survival were analyzed separately for all patients, patients with stage I disease and patients with pure seminoma or nonseminomatous germ cell tumor. Additionally, the effect of local treatment for scrotal violation on prognosis was examined. Although statistically significant differences were found in the local recurrence rate among the scrotal violation and inguinal group studies, the overall local recurrence rates were small (2.9% versus 0.4%, respectively). There were no statistical differences in distant recurrence or survival rates in all groups analyzed. Patients with scrotal violation who did not receive any local therapy fared as well as those who did receive local therapy.Although the standard treatment of primary testicular cancer remains high inguinal orchiectomy, these data suggest that scrotal violation does not impart a significantly worse overall prognosis. These data would also indicate that patients with stage I disease and scrotal violation should not necessarily be disqualified from surveillance protocols or subjected to adjuvant local therapy.

Ureteral obstruction can have a variety of causes intrinsic or extrinsic to the kidney. The effects of obstruction are examined from the perspectives of duration, severity, totality, and the presence of complicating factors. There is a difference in the postobstructive pathophysiology depending on whether one or both ureters were obstructed. Atrial natriuretic peptide may be important in postobstructive diuresis, and preliminary evidence suggests a role for it as protection against nephron ischemia in acute obstruction. The potential for recovery of renal function after relief of obstruction depends on the duration and degree of obstruction, the condition of the contralateral kidney, and the presence or absence of infection. Ability to acidify the urine to pH <6.0 preoperatively may be a good predictor of the recovery potential of an obstructed kidney. Urine concentrations of lysosomal enzymes such as N-acetylglucosaminidase also may be useful for this purpose, as may measurement of creatinine clearance in urine obtained from a nephrostomy tube.