ABSTRACT
Purpose: To conduct a systematic literature review with meta-analysis to identify whether antibiotic prophylaxis after removal of the indwelling urinary catheter reduces posterior infections. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in the databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, using the keywords "antibiotics" AND "prostatectomy" AND "urinary catheter." Results: Three articles were identified having the scope of our review, with 1,040 patients, which were subjected to our meta-analysis revealing a marginally significant decrease in the risk of urinary infection after indwelling urinary catheter removal (odds ratio-OR = 0.51; 95% confidence interval-95%CI 0.27-0.98; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%). No difference was found regarding the presence of bacteriuria (OR = 0.39; 95%CI 0.12-1.24; p = 0.11; I2 = 73%). Conclusions: In our meta-analysis, there was a significant decrease in urinary tract infection with antibiotic prophylaxis after indwelling urinary catheter removal following radical prostatectomy.
Subject(s)
Prostatectomy , Urologic Diseases , Antibiotic Prophylaxis , Catheters , Anti-Bacterial AgentsABSTRACT
Purpose: Kidney stones are one of the most common urological diseases worldwide. The size and location of the stone are the most important factors in determining the most suitable treatment options. The aim of this review was to evaluate the displacement of lower pole stones. Methods: Three studies assessing the efficacy of translocating kidney stones from the lower pole of the kidney to other locations during retrograde intrarenal surgery published in the last 20 years were included. A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and Web of Science databases using the following search terms: "Lower pole," "Lithotripsy." Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.4. Results: Stone-free rates were improved through displacement (odds ratio - OR = -0.15; 95% confidence interval-95%CI -0.24--0.05; p = 0.002; I2 = 21%), but at the cost of increased surgical duration (mean difference = -12.50; 95%CI -24.06--0.95; p = 0.03; I2 = 94%). Although this represents a potentially negative outcome, the improvement in clearance rates justifies the additional investment of time and effort. Conclusions: Displacement of lower pole kidney stones for subsequent lithotripsy brings significant benefits in terms of stone-free rate, with no difference in laser energy usage. However, it results in increased surgical time. Despite these factors, the benefits to patients undergoing the procedure are substantial.
Subject(s)
Lithotripsy , Kidney Calculi/surgery , UreteroscopyABSTRACT
Purpose: In Brazil, healthcare services traditionally follow a fee-for-service (FFS) payment system, in which each medical procedure incurs a separate charge. An alternative reimbursement with the aim of reducing costs is diagnosis related group (DRG) remuneration, in which all patient care is covered by a fixed amount. This work aimed to perform a systematic review followed by meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of the Budled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) versus FFS. Methods: Our work was performed following the items of the PRISMA report. We included only observational trials, and the primary outcome assessed was the effectiveness of FFS and DRG in appendectomy considering complications. We also assessed the costs and length of hospital stay. Meta-analysis was performed with Rev Man version 5.4. Results: Out of 735 initially identified articles, six met the eligibility criteria. We demonstrated a shorter hospital stay associated with the DRG model (mean difference = 0.39; 95% confidence interval 95%CI 0.380.40; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%), however the hospital readmission rate was higher in this model (odds ratio = 1.57; 95%CI 1.022.44, p = 0.04; I2 = 90%). Conclusions: This study reveals a potential decrease in the length of stay for appendectomy patients using the DRG approach. However, no significant differences were observed in other outcomes analysis between the two approaches.