Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
Int. braz. j. urol ; 49(6): 732-739, Nov.-Dec. 2023. tab
Artículo en Inglés | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1550273

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT Purpose: To compare the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with pelvic lymph-nodes dissection (PLND) when the same surgeon performs RARP and PLND versus one surgeon performs RARP and another surgeon performs PLND. Materials and Methods: From January 2022 to March 2023, data of consecutive patients who underwent RARP with PLND were prospectively collected. The surgeries were performed by two "young" surgeons with detailed profile. Specifically for the study purpose, one surgeon performed RARP, and the other surgeon performed PLND. A set of surgeries performed according to the standard setup (i.e., the same surgeon performing both RARP and PLND) was retrieved from the institutional database and used as comparator arm. To test the study hypothesis, patients were divided into two groups: "dual-surgeon" versus "single-surgeon". Results: Fifty patients underwent RARP and PLND performed according to dual-surgeon setup and were compared to the last 50 procedures performed according to the standard single-surgeon setup. Patients in the groups had comparable baseline characteristics. Dual-surgeon interventions had significantly shorter median total operative (194 [IQR 178-215] versus 174 [IQR 146-195] minutes, p<0.001) and console time (173 [IQR 158-194] versus 154 [IQR 129-170] minutes, p<0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of blood loss, intraoperative complications, postoperative outcomes, and final pathology results. Conclusions: The present analysis found that when RARP and PLND are split onto two surgeons, the operative time is shorter by 20 minutes compared to when a single surgeon performs RARP and PLND. This is an interesting finding that could sponsor further studies.

2.
Int. braz. j. urol ; 48(2): 328-335, March-Apr. 2022. tab
Artículo en Inglés | LILACS | ID: biblio-1364937

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT Objectives: To compare thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy (LSP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and Methods: Data of patients who underwent surgery for "large" BPH (>80mL) at three Institutions were collected and analyzed. Two institutions performed ThuLEP only; the third institution performed LSP only. Preoperative (indwelling catheter status, prostate volume (PVol), hemoglobin (Hb), Qmax, post-voiding residual volume (PVR), IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5) and perioperative data (operative time, enucleated adenoma, catheterization time, length of stay, Hb-drop, complications) were compared. Functional (Qmax, PVR, %ΔQmax) and patient-reported outcomes (IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5, %ΔIPSS, %ΔQoL) were compared at last follow-up. Results: 80 and 115 patients underwent LSP and ThuLEP, respectively. At baseline, median PVol was 130 versus 120mL, p <0.001; Qmax 9.6 vs. 7.1mL/s, p=0.005; IPSS 21 versus 25, p <0.001. Groups were comparable in terms of intraoperative complications (1 during LSP vs. 3 during ThuLEP) and transfusions (1 per group). Differences in terms of operative time (156 vs. 92 minutes, p <0.001), Hb-drop (-2.5 vs. −0.9g/dL, p <0.001), catheterization time (5 vs. 2 days, p <0.001) and postoperative complications (13.8% vs. 0, p <0.001) favored ThuLEP. At median follow-up of 40 months after LSP versus 30 after ThuLEP (p <0.001), Qmax improved by 226% vs. 205% (p=0.5), IPSS decreased by 88% versus 85% (p=0.9), QoL decreased by 80% with IIEF-5 remaining almost unmodified for both the approaches. Conclusions: Our analysis showed that LSP and ThuLEP are comparable in relieving from BPO and improving the patient-reported outcomes. Invasiveness of LSP is more significant.


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Hiperplasia Prostática/cirugía , Hiperplasia Prostática/complicaciones , Laparoscopía , Terapia por Láser , Láseres de Estado Sólido/uso terapéutico , Próstata/cirugía , Prostatectomía , Calidad de Vida , Tulio/uso terapéutico , Resultado del Tratamiento
4.
Int. braz. j. urol ; 44(4): 740-749, July-Aug. 2018. tab, graf
Artículo en Inglés | LILACS | ID: biblio-954072

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT Introduction: eGFR-categories are used to predict functional outcome after partial nephrectomy (PN); no study categorized patients according to preoperative renal scan (RS) data. Aim of the study was to evaluate if stratification of patients according to RS is a reliable method to predict minor/major loss of renal function after PN. Materials and Methods: We considered patients who underwent PN and RS pre-/post-PN for T1 tumor in our Institution (2007-2017). Demographics, perioperative and specifically functional data were analysed. On the basis of the baseline Split Renal Function (SRF), patients were stratified into risk-categories: 1) baseline operated-kidney SRF range 45-55%; 2) baseline operated-kidney SRF <45%. Risk categories were analysed with postoperative functional outcome: postoperative operated-kidney SRF decrease below 90% of baseline was considered significant loss of function. Contingency tables and univariate/multivariate regression were analysed looking for independent factors of postoperative functional impairment. Results: 224 patients were analysed, 125 (55.8%) maintained >90% of their baseline function. Worse probability of maintaining ≥90 baseline renal function was found in patients with Charlson's Comorbidity Index (CCI≥3) (p=0.004) and patients with PADUA score ≥8 (p=0.023). After stratification by baseline renal function, ischemia was the only independent factor: no effect on patients with poorer baseline renal function. Patients with baseline SRF 45-55% who did not experience ischemia had the highest probability to maintain ≥90% baseline SRF (p=0.028). Ischemia >25 minutes was detrimental (p=0.017). Conclusions: Stratification of patients by SRF before PN is not a reliable predictor of renal functional outcome. Ischemia seems to scarcely influence patients with poorer renal function.


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Anciano , Carcinoma de Células Renales/cirugía , Carcinoma de Células Renales/fisiopatología , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Riñón/fisiopatología , Neoplasias Renales/cirugía , Neoplasias Renales/fisiopatología , Nefrectomía/métodos , Periodo Posoperatorio , Valores de Referencia , Factores de Tiempo , Carcinoma de Células Renales/patología , Modelos Logísticos , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estadísticas no Paramétricas , Creatinina/sangre , Isquemia Tibia/métodos , Periodo Preoperatorio , Tasa de Filtración Glomerular , Riñón/cirugía , Riñón/irrigación sanguínea , Riñón/patología , Neoplasias Renales/patología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Nefrectomía/efectos adversos
5.
Int. braz. j. urol ; 38(4): 480-488, July-Aug. 2012. ilus, tab
Artículo en Inglés | LILACS | ID: lil-649441

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of our technique of clampless laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and its impact as an emerging treatment for small renal masses (SMRs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our prospectively maintained database: data of 117 patients who consecutively underwent LPN at our Institution from January 2009 to December 2011 were studied. Patients were divided into 2 Groups based on operative technique: Group A: clampless-LPN (cl-LPN); Group B: conventional LPN (clamping of renal artery). Demographic and peri-operative data, complications, pre- and post-operative serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were registered and compared by Student’s t- and Chi-square-tests (p-values < 0.05 considered statistically significant). RESULTS: 41 patients were in Group A and 76 in Group B. Groups were comparable in terms of preoperative data except for tumour’s size (2.35 ± 1.10 vs. 3.19 ± 1.57, Group A vs. B, respectively, p = 0.0029). Concerning perioperative data, warm ischemia time (WIT) was 0 min. in all Group A cases; mean WIT in Group B was 20.90 ± 9.27 min. One case (2.4%) in Group A (central tumour) was converted to conventional LPN. Mean eGFR postoperative decrease was higher in Group B (0.17 ± 9.30 vs. 4.38 ± 11.37 mL/min., A vs B, respectively, p = 0.0445). CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding the limits of the study, our results suggest that cl-LPN is a safe and effective technique, which allows surgeon to surgically treat SRMs even in case of complex location, without injuring kidney by ischemia.


Asunto(s)
Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Laparoscopía/métodos , Nefrectomía/métodos , Nefronas/cirugía , Tratamientos Conservadores del Órgano/métodos , Distribución de Chi-Cuadrado , Tasa de Filtración Glomerular , Laparoscopía/estadística & datos numéricos , Nefrectomía/estadística & datos numéricos , Periodo Posoperatorio , Periodo Preoperatorio , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA