INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS Midstream urine (MSU) is key in assessing lower urinary tract syndrome (LUTS), but contingent on some assumptions. The aim of this study was to compare the occurrence of contamination and the quality of substrates obtained from four different collections MSU, catheter specimen urine (CSU), a commercial MSU collecting device (Peezy) and a natural void. Contamination was quantified by differential, uroplakin-positive, urothelial cell counts. METHODS This was a single blind, crossover study conducted in two phases. First, we compared the MSU with CSU using urine culture, pyuria counts and differential counting of epithelial cells after immunofluorescence staining for uroplakin III (UP3). Second, we compared the three non-invasive (MSU, Peezy MSU™, natural void) methods using UP3 antibody staining only. RESULTS The natural void was best at collecting bladder urinary sediment, with the majority of epithelial cells present derived from the urinary tract. CSU sampling missed much of the urinary sediment and showed sparse culture results. Finally, the MSU collection methods did not capture much of the bladder sediment. CONCLUSION We found little evidence for contamination with the four methods. Natural void was the best method for harvesting shed urothelial cells and white blood cells. It provides a richer sample of the inflammatory exudate, including parasitised urothelial cells and the microbial substrate. However, if the midstream sample is believed to be important, the MSU collection device is advantageous.INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes in women who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) with or without hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS This was a single-centre prospective study. We included women with symptomatic POP (III-IV stage) who underwent LSC with or without hysterectomy. The preoperative evaluation included a history, clinical examination and urodynamic test; all patients completed FSFI, UDI-6 and IIQ-7 questionnaires. They were followed up at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery and then annually thereafter with the same preoperative flow chart. At the last visit, they also completed the PGI-I questionnaire. RESULTS Between 2012 and 2016, a total of 136 patients with POP were included (82 in the LSC with hysterectomy group and 54 in the hysteropexy group). At a median follow-up of 65.3 months (36-84 months), there were improvements in the anatomical and functional outcomes of both groups without differences between the two approaches. The apical success rate was 100% in all women, without recurrence in either group; the anterior and posterior success rates of hysterectomy were higher than those of uterine preservation. CONCLUSION This study showed that there were no differences in the anatomical and functional outcomes between LSC with or without hysterectomy for POP.PURPOSE Concomitant chest injury is known to negatively affect bone metabolism and fracture healing, whereas traumatic brain injury (TBI) appears to have positive effects on bone metabolism. Osteogenesis can also be influenced by the timing of fracture stabilization. We aimed to identify how chest injuries, TBI and fracture stabilization strategy influences the incidence of non-union. METHODS Patients with long bone fractures of the lower extremities who had been treated between 2004 and 2014 were retrospectively analysed. Non-union was defined as fracture healing not occurring in the expected time period and in which neither progression of healing nor successful union is expected without intervention. Diverse clinical and radiological parameters were statistically analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). RESULTS The total number of operations before consolidation was an independent predictor (odds ratio [OR] = 6.416, p  less then  0.001) for the development of non-union in patients with long bone fractures. More specifically, patients treated according to the damage control orthopaedics (DCO) principle had a significantly higher risk of developing a non-union than patients treated according to the early total care (ETC) principle (OR = 7.878, p = 0.005). Concomitant chest injury and TBI could not be identified as influencing factors for non-union development. CONCLUSION Our results indicate that the number of operations performed in patients with long bone fractures should be kept as low as possible and that the indication for and the timing of DCO treatment should be meticulously noted to minimize the risk of non-union development.BACKGROUND According to international guidelines neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy are recommended for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. The treatment approach depends on the tumor entity (adenocarcinoma vs. squamous cell carcinoma). OBJECTIVE What benefits do patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer have from neoadjuvant treatment? Is there information in the international literature on whether a particular neoadjuvant treatment is preferred? Does the type of neoadjuvant treatment depend on factors other than the tumor entity? Is there a standard in the drug composition of chemotherapy or a clearly defined chemoradiotherapy regimen? MATERIAL AND METHODS A review, evaluation and critical analysis of the international literature were carried out. RESULTS Patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer benefit from a neoadjuvant treatment. The current data situation for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus demonstrates a better response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. Locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus can be treated with combined neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy as well as by chemotherapy alone. Both lead to an improvement in the prognosis. There are often differences particularly among radiation treatment regimens in the different centers. Furthermore, the localization of the tumor can also be important for treatment decisions. CONCLUSION A neoadjuvant treatment is clearly recommended for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Currently, chemoradiotherapy according to the CROSS protocol is preferred for squamous cell carcinoma. Kartogenin For adenocarcinoma both chemotherapy according to the FLOT protocol as well as chemoradiotherapy in a neoadjuvant treatment concept lead to an improvement in the prognosis.