Opinión de los padres y cuidadores de niños internados acerca de su presencia durante la realización de procedimientos invasivos / Opinion of parents and caregivers of interned children about their presence during the realization of invasive procedures

Introducción. La presencia de los familiares durante la realización de procedimientos es un tema polémico.A pesar de la idea generalizada sobre el beneficio que esto produce, los procedimientos suelenl levarse a cabo en lugares de acceso restringido.Objetivos. 1. Conocer la opinión de los padres y cuidadores de niños internados acerca de su presencia durante la realización de procedimientos invasivos. 2. Conocer los motivos para justificar o rechazar la presencia.Materiales y métodos. Criterios de inclusión: padresy cuidadores de niños internados en el Hospital Municipal Materno Infantil de San Isidro Dr.Carlos Gianantonio y en el Sanatorio Mater Dei. Diseño: Estudio descriptivo, transversal. Encuesta anónima semiestructurada. Resultados. Se entregaron 178 encuestas, se recuperaron172. La edad promedio (media) de los encuestados fue 33,75 años; 80,81por ciento eran mujeres;98,84 por ciento tenía hijos. Relación con el paciente: madre70,93por ciento, padre 18,02por ciento, abuelo/a 6,4por ciento, tío/a 2,33 por ciento yhermano/a 2,33por ciento. El deseo de presenciar los diferentes procedimientosfue siempre mayor del 50 por ciento. Existe una relación inversa con la invasividad del procedimiento: acceso endovenoso 88,95por ciento, sutura de herida 78,49 por ciento, punción lumbar 73,84%, intubación endotraque al56,98 por ciento y reanimación cardiopulmonar 58,72 por ciento. Con el niño inconsciente se obtienen resultados similares.Los motivos más frecuentes esgrimidos paraj ustificar la presencia son: contención emocional delniño y vigilancia del procedimiento.Conclusiones. 1) La mayoría de los encuestados desea la presencia. 2) Existe una relación inversa entre el deseo de los familiares y los procedimientos de mayor invasividad. 3) No hay diferencias significativas al comparar los resultados según el estado de conciencia o inconsciencia del niño

Introduction. The presence of family members during procedures is a controversial topic. Despite the widespread perception of its benefits, procedures are often carried out in places with restricted access. Objectives. 1. To know parent´s and caregiver´s opinion about their presence during the performance of invasive procedures. 2. To determine the reasons to justify or deny their presence. Materials and methods. Inclusion criteria: parents and caregivers of children admited to Hospital Municipal Materno Infantil de San Isidro “Dr. Carlos Gianantonio” and Sanatorio “Mater Dei”. Design: transversal study. Anonymous survey. Results: One hundred and seventy eight surveys were delivered and 172 were recovered. The average age of respondents was 33.75 years, 80.81% were women, 98.84% had children. The relationship to the patient: mother 70.93%, father 18.02%, grandparents 6.4%, uncle 2.33% and sibling 2.33%. The desire to be present at the different procedures was always greater than 50%. There is an inverse relationship with the invasiveness of the procedure: endovenous access 88.95%, laceration repair (sutures) 78.49%, lumbar puncture 73.84%, endotracheal intubation 56.98% and cardiopul-monary resuscitation 58.72%. Similar results were obtained for unconscious child. The most frequently reasons to justify the presence are emotional containment of the child and procedure monitoring. Conclusions. 1) The majority of respondents wanted to be present. 2) There is an inverse relationship between the desire of the family and level of invasiveness. 3) There are not significant differences comparing conscious or unconscious child. Key words: procedures, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, presence, parents, caregivers.

Effect of insemination-to-induced ovulation interval on fertilization rate, embryo viability and number of accessory sperms in SOWS

The ideal interval between AI and ovulation (OV) is not well determined yet, varying from 12 to 28 h before up to 4 h after ovulation. Utilization of gonadotrophins to synchronize ovulation would allow the pre-determination of the groups' size, according to the AI-OV intervals, and would contribute to determine a secure interval between AI-Ov. 120 sows received 7.5 mg IM of Luprostiol, between days 12 and 17 of the estrous cycle, 600 lU of eCG 1M 24 h after prostaglandin and 5.0 mg of LH 1M 72 h after eCG injection. The moment of ovulation was diagnosed by transrectal ultrasonography at intervals of 6 h. There were 5 treatments according to IA-OV interval: T1- 48 to 36 h before OV; T2- 36 to 24 h before OV; T3- 24 to 12 h before OV; T4- 12 to 0h before OV and T5-0 to 12 h after Ov. Sows were slaughtered 96. 7±11.37 h after Ov. Recovery rate (RR), number of corpora lutea (NC), total number of structures (ST), fertilization rate (FR), embryo viability (EV) and number of accessory sperm (AS) were analyzed. The synchronization protocol showed an homogenous distribution of the animaIs among treatments (LH-OV interval 39.22±7.6h), and it didn't influenced the results. FR and EV results suggest that 36 h is the time of sperm viability in sow genital tract. There was a strong decline of AS between T3 and T4.

O intervalo ideal entre a AI e ovulação (OV) não está bem determinado ainda, variando entre 12 a 28 h antes até 4 h depois da ovulação. A utilização de gonadotrofinas para sincronizar ovulação permitiria a pré-determinação do tamanho dos grupos, de acordo com os intervalos IA-OV, e possibilitaria determinar um intervalo seguro entre IA-OV 120 porcas receberam 7.5 mg IM de Luprostiol, entre os dias 12 e 17 do ciclo estral, 600 lU de eCG 1M 24 h após o Luprostiol e 5.0 mg de LH 1M 72 h após a injeção de eCG. O momento de ovulação foi diagnosticado pela ultra-sonografia trans-retal a intervalos de 6 h. Definiu-se 5 tratamentos de acordo com o intervalo IA-OV: T1 - 48 a 36 h antes da OV; T2 - 36 a 24 h antes da OV; T3 - 24 a 12 h antes da OV; T4 -12 a 0 h antes da OV e T5 - 0 a 12 h após a OV. O abate ocorreu 96.7±11.37 h após a OV. A taxa de recuperação (RR), número de lutea de corpos (NC), número total de estruturas (ST), taxa de fecundação (FR), viabilidade embrionária (EV) e número de espermatozóides acessórios (AS) foram analisados. O protocolo de sincronização mostrou uma distribuição homogênea dos animais entre os tratamentos (intervalo LH-OV de 39.22±7.6h), e não influenciou os resultados. A FR e os resultados de EV sugerem que 36 h seja o tempo de viabilidade do espermatozóide trato genital da porca. Houve um forte declínio do AS entre T3 e T4.