[Liver transplantation: development, learning curve and results after the first 300 cases]. / Trasplante hepático: evolución, curva de aprendizaje y resultados después de los primeros 300 casos.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) is an option for people with liver failure who cannot be cured with other therapies and for some people with liver cancer. AIM: To describe, and analyze the first 300 LT clinical results, and to establish our learning curve. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study with data obtained from a prospectively collected LT Program database. We included all LT performed at a single center from March 1994 to September 2017. The database gathered demographics, diagnosis, indications for LT, surgical aspects and postoperative courses. We constructed a cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM) using 30-day post-LT mortality. Mortality at 30 days, and actuarial 1-, and 5-year survival rate were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 281 patients aged 54 (0-71) years (129 women) underwent 300 LT. Ten percent of patients were younger than 18 years old. The first, second and third indications for LT were non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, chronic autoimmune hepatitis and alcoholic liver cirrhosis, respectively. Acute liver failure was the LT indication in 51 cases (17%). The overall complication rate was 71%. Infectious and biliary complications were the most common of them (47 and 31% respectively). The LC-CUSUM curve shows that the first 30 patients corresponded to the learning curve. The peri-operative mortality was 8%. Actuarial 1 and 5-year survival rates were 82 and 71.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome improvement of a LT program depends on the accumulation of experience after the first 30 transplants and the peri-operative mortality directly impacted long-term survival.

Autologous versus prosthetic reconstruction for women with breast cancer who will undergo post-reconstruction radiotherapy. / Reconstrucción autóloga versus reconstrucción protésica para mujeres con cáncer de mama que serán sometidas a radioterapia post reconstrucción.

INTRODUCTION: Radiotherapy is frequently used after breast reconstruction in patients with locally advanced breast cancer or metastases in axillary lymph nodes. However, there might be differences between autologous and prosthetic reconstruction in terms of effectiveness and safety of post-reconstruction radiotherapy. METHODS: To answer this question we searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified five systematic reviews including nine primary studies overall, of which all were observational studies. We concluded that in patients who will undergo post reconstructive radiotherapy, autologous breast reconstruction could reduce reoperations due to general complications compared to prosthetic breast reconstruction. However, it probably increases the risk of skin or flap necrosis. It is not clear whether there are differences in other outcomes as the certainty of evidence has been assessed as very low.

INTRODUCCIÓN: La radioterapia se utiliza cada vez con más frecuencia después de la reconstrucción mamaria en pacientes con cáncer de mama localmente avanzado o con metástasis en linfonodos axilares. Sin embargo, se ha propuesto que podrían existir diferencias en la efectividad y seguridad de la radioterapia post reconstrucción dependiendo de qué tipo de reconstrucción mamaria se utilice, ya sea esta reconstrucción autóloga o protésica. MÉTODOS: Para responder esta pregunta utilizamos Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, re analizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un metanálisis y preparamos una tabla de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: Identificamos cinco revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyeron nueve estudios primarios, todos los cuales corresponden a estudios observacionales. Concluimos que la reconstrucción mamaria autóloga podría disminuir las reoperaciones atribuidas a complicaciones generales en comparación a la reconstrucción mamaria protésica en pacientes sometidas a radioterapia post reconstrucción, pero probablemente aumenta el riesgo de necrosis de piel o colgajo. No está claro si existen diferencias en otros desenlaces, debido a que la certeza de la evidencia ha sido evaluada como muy baja.

Trasplante hepático: evolución, curva de aprendizaje y resultados después de los primeros 300 casos / Liver transplantation: development, learning curve and results after the first 300 cases

Background: Liver transplantation (LT) is an option for people with liver failure who cannot be cured with other therapies and for some people with liver cancer. Aim: To describe, and analyze the first 300 LT clinical results, and to establish our learning curve. Material and Methods: Retrospective cohort study with data obtained from a prospectively collected LT Program database. We included all LT performed at a single center from March 1994 to September 2017. The database gathered demographics, diagnosis, indications for LT, surgical aspects and postoperative courses. We constructed a cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM) using 30-day post-LT mortality. Mortality at 30 days, and actuarial 1-, and 5-year survival rate were analyzed. Results: A total of 281 patients aged 54 (0-71) years (129 women) underwent 300 LT. Ten percent of patients were younger than 18 years old. The first, second and third indications for LT were non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, chronic autoimmune hepatitis and alcoholic liver cirrhosis, respectively. Acute liver failure was the LT indication in 51 cases (17%). The overall complication rate was 71%. Infectious and biliary complications were the most common of them (47 and 31% respectively). The LC-CUSUM curve shows that the first 30 patients corresponded to the learning curve. The peri-operative mortality was 8%. Actuarial 1 and 5-year survival rates were 82 and 71.4%, respectively. Conclusions: Outcome improvement of a LT program depends on the accumulation of experience after the first 30 transplants and the peri-operative mortality directly impacted long-term survival.

Is a ureteral stent required after use of ureteral access sheath in presented patients who undergo flexible ureteroscopy?

INTRODUCTION: Use of a ureteral access sheath (UAS) within flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) for the management of kidney and ureteral stones has shown improvements in its effectiveness, but it is also associated with increased risk of ureteral injury. Use of ureteral stent (US) after fURS is recommended by some authors, because of its role in reducing postoperative pain and preventing complications. Our objective is to determine if postoperative stenting is necessary in pre-stented patients that underwent fURS using UAS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective history review of patients who underwent fURS using UAS at our hospital between July 1st 2013 and May 31st 2016 was performed. Only pre-stented patients were included. All procedures were performed using the same UAS (Boston Navigator TM., 11-13 Fr.). Patients were separated according to the use or not of postoperative US. The same US (26 cm 6 Fr percuflex, Boston Scienfic) was used for all stented patients. Clinical parameters, stone demographics, operative time and postoperative events were analyzed. RESULTS: Seventy patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean stone size was 8.5 mm (SD 7.06), 68.49% were located in the renal pelvis and 31.51% were in the proximal ureter. Reasons of preoperative stenting were: 14 (19.18%) ureteral stricture, 17 (23.29%) urosepsis, 29 (39.73%) residual stones after a first intervention (stage procedure) and 13 (17.8%) unsuccessful extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Mean operative time was 88 minutes (SD 37.20); 32 patients (45.71%) were stented and 38 (54.28%) were not. There were no significant differences in operative time (p = 0.85) or postoperative outcomes (p = 1). CONCLUSIONS: A postoperative ureteral stent is not necessary after fURS using UAS in pre-stented patients.

Enfrentamiento terapéutico en litiasis urinarias: adherencia de urólogos chilenos a las guías clínicas / Therapeutic confrontation in urinary lithiasis: adherence of chilian urologists to clinicals guidelines

Introducción. La urolitiasis es una patología prevalente en el mundo occidental. Hoy en día, existen distintas opciones terapéuticas para el manejo de esta patología en sus diferentes formas de presentación. En la mayoría de estas situaciones, se dispone de guías clínicas que orientan el manejo. Nuestro objetivo fue determinar la adherencia a guías clínicas de manejo de urolitiasis frente a situaciones hipotéticas, por parte de urólogos pertenecientes a la Sociedad Chilena de Urología. Materiales y Métodos. Se diseñó una encuesta en línea, a través de la plataforma Formularios de Google, consistente de preguntas generales para caracterizar a los encuestados y 11 preguntas de selección múltiple de casos clínicos hipotéticos. Los escenarios clínicos variaban en: localización, tamaño, densidad del cálculo y tiempo de evolución. La encuesta fue difundida a través de correo electrónico de urólogos pertenecientes a la Sociedad Chilena de Urología. Se excluyó del análisis a urólogos infantiles. Las variables tiempo de ejercicio profesional y número de pacientes manejados fueron dicotomizadas según media. Se realizó análisis estadístico con test exacto de Fisher. Resultados. 67 urólogos contestaron la encuesta. El 98,5 por ciento era de adultos; 73,1 por ciento realizó residencia de 3 años de duración. Un 38,8 por ciento manejó más de 80 pacientes con litiasis en el último año. La media de años de ejercicio como especialista fue 13,8 años. Un 56,1 por ciento tenían menos de 14 años de ejercicio y 43,9 por ciento 14 o más. No se observó diferencia significativa en cuanto a adherencia a guías clínicas en los distintos escenarios de litiasis ureteral, entre los grupos dicotomizados por años de ejercicio (p=0,47) ni al dicotomizarlos por número de pacientes manejados (P=0,63). Un 48 por ciento adhiere a terapia médica expulsiva y un 68 por ciento a terapia quirúrgica (p=0,000009). Conclusiones. Una mayoría de los urólogos encuestados refiere utilizar opciones terapéuticas similares a las recomendadas por las guías clínicas. No se observó diferencia en las conductas propuestas entre los grupos de mayor o menor experiencia profesional ni entre los grupos con mayor o menor número de pacientes manejados por urolitiasis. (AU)

SUMMARY Introduction. Urolithiasis is a prevalent pathology in the western world. There are different therapeutic options for the management of this pathology in its different forms of presentation. In most of these situations, clinical guidelines are available. Our objective was to determine the adherence in certain hypothetical situations to clinical guidelines of urolithiasis management, by urologists belonging to Sociedad Chilena de Urología. Materials y Methods. An online survey was developed using Google Forms platform, consisting of general questions to characterize the respondents and 11 multiple-choice questions of hypothetical clinical cases. The clinical scenarios varied in: location, size, density of the calculi and time. The survey was sent via email to urologists belonging to Sociedad Chilena de Urología. Pediatric urologists were excluded from analysis. Two variables: years of practice as a specialist and number of patients treated, were dichotomized according to mean. Statistical analysis was performed with Fisher's exact test. Results. 67 urologists answered the survey. 98.5 pertcent were non-pediatric urologists; 73.1 pertcent completed residence for 3 years. 38.8 pertcent treated more than 80 patients with lithiasis in the last year. Average number of years of practice as a specialist was 13.8 years. 56.1 pertcent had less than 14 years of exercise and 43.9 pertcent had 14 or more. There was no significant difference in adherence to clinical guidelines in the different scenarios of ureteral lithiasis between groups dichotomized by years of exercise (p = 0.47) or dichotomized by number of patients treated (p = 0.63). 48 pertcent adhered to medical expulsive therapy and 68 percent to surgical therapy (p = 0.000009). Conclusions. Most urologists surveyed use similar therapeutic options to those recommended by clinical guidelines. No difference was observed between groups of greater or lesser professional experience nor among groups with greater or lesser number of patients managed by urolithiasis. (AU)