Re: Hydrodissection of neurovascular bundles during open radical prostatectomy improves postoperative potency: M. I. Patel, D. Spernat and E. Lopez-Corona J Urol 2011; 186: 233-237

摘要

To the Editor: The authors make an important contribution to the literature with a prospective study of the prevalence of familial testicular torsion among all patients with testicular torsion. The article certainly is an eye-opener.The methods section does not detail whether a standardized approach or questionnaire was used to elicit comprehensive family history. In particular, was a formal family history in the form of a genetic pedigree obtained for all probands? The authors did not report the number of unaffected first and second degree male relatives. This information would be useful for interpreting the likely pattern of genetic inheritance, especially if it follows a simple Mendelian inheritance pattern. The number of unaffected relatives is useful for understanding whether the reported findings can simply be explained by chance.In table 1 in the article family 5 has a proband with a monozygotic twin brother affected by testicular torsion. The concise reporting of the findings leaves the reader with a number of unanswered questions that require clarification. What was the outcome for the proband with bilateral torsion, atrophy of both testes? It is also unclear if the bilateral torsions were synchronous or asynchronous. If the torsions were asynchronous, at what age did the first and second torsion occur? Did the patient undergo exploration and bilateral orchiopexy with the first torsion?It is noteworthy that family 3 has previously been reported in the literature.1 This detail should be mentioned to avoid confusion for the reader.