Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Adicionar filtros








Intervalo de ano
1.
Rev. chil. urol ; 79(2): 39-43, 2014. ilus
Artigo em Espanhol | LILACS | ID: lil-785341

RESUMO

En el último tiempo, en la urología, ha ganado terreno la cirugía endoluminal que es menos invasiva pero técnicamente más compleja que la cirugía abierta. Esto sumado a la menor exposición a procedimientos prácticos de los residentes ha puesto la alerta en la necesidad de establecer mecanismos de evaluación objetivos de las competencias técnicas para garantizar la seguridad de los pacientes. El objetivo de nuestro trabajo fue desarrollar un checklist de tareas específicas para la evaluación del procedimiento ureterolitotomía endoscópica. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Para el desarrollo del checklist se utilizó el método de Delphi modificado que busca consenso entre expertos a través de la evaluación y revisión sucesiva de un formulario y el análisis estadístico de las respuestas. RESULTADOS: Con la participación de ocho urólogos expertos en procedimientos endourológicos de distintas instituciones del país se obtuvo un checklist de 23 ítems para el procedimiento ureterolitotomía endoscópica. CONCLUSIÓN: Se describe y presenta el desarrollo de un checklist de tareas específicas para el procedimiento ureterolitotomía endoscópica que permitirá la evaluación de residentes tanto en el laboratorio de simulación como en el pabellón quirúrgico.


In the last years, endoluminal surgery, a less invasive but technically more complex procedure, has gained ground in urology over open surgery. The reduction on exposure to practical procedures of residents has added an alert on the need to establish a mechanism for objective assessment of technical skills to ensure patients safety. The aim of this study was develop a tasks-specific checklist in order to assess resident performing endoscopic ureterolithotomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The modified Delphi method was used for the development of the checklist. This technic tries to find a consensus among experts through the evaluation and subsequent revision of a questionnaire and the statistical analysis of the responses. RESULTS: Eight endourologists procedures experts from different institutions of the country participate on this study helping to develop a 23-item checklist for ureterolithotomy endoscopic procedure. CONCLUSIONS: We describe and present the development of a tasks-specific checklist for ureterolithotomy endoscopic that will allow the evaluation of residents in both simulation laboratory and surgical ward.


Assuntos
Humanos , Competência Clínica , Cálculos Ureterais/cirurgia , Lista de Checagem , Ureteroscopia/normas
2.
Int. braz. j. urol ; 32(6): 656-667, Nov.-Dec. 2006. tab, graf
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS | ID: lil-441365

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi with respect to patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND MHETODS: This is a prospective study where a total of 212 patients with solitary, radiopaque distal ureteral calculi were treated with ESWL (n = 92) using Dornier lithotriptor S (MedTech Europe GmbH) or URS (n = 120). Patient and stone characteristics, treatment parameters, clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction were assessed for each group. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable in regard to patient age, sex, stone size, and side of treatment. The stone-free status for ESWL and URS at 3 months was 81.5 percent and 97.5 percent, respectively (p < 0.0001). In addition, 88 percent of patients who underwent ESWL versus 20 percent who underwent URS were discharged home the day of procedure. Minor complications occurred in 3.3 percent and 8.3 percent of the ESWL and URS groups, respectively (p = 0.127). No ureteral perforation or stricture occurred in the URS group. Postoperative flank pain and dysuria were more severe in the URS than ESWL group, although the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.16). Patient satisfaction was high for both groups, including 94 percent for URS and 80 percent for ESWL (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: URS is more effective than ESWL for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi. ESWL was more often performed on an outpatient basis, and showed a trend towards less flank pain and dysuria, fewer complications and quicker convalescence. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher for URS according to the questionnaire used in this study.


Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Criança , Adolescente , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Litotripsia/normas , Satisfação do Paciente , Cálculos Ureterais/terapia , Ureteroscopia/normas , Métodos Epidemiológicos , Tempo de Internação , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA