Evaluación de la teleconsulta en el paciente urológico durante la pandemia COVID-19 / Evaluation of teleconsultation system in the urological patient during the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCCIÓN: La pandemia global de COVID-19 ha provocado una rápida implantación de la telemedicina, pero existe escasa información sobre la satisfacción percibida por el paciente como alternativa a la asistencia presencial. OBJETIVO: Se evalúa la satisfacción del paciente urológico con la teleconsulta durante la pandemia COVID-19. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional, prospectivo transversal, no intervencionista, mediante encuesta telefónica durante el periodo considerado pico de pandemia (marzo-abril 2020). Se realiza una encuesta de calidad compuesta por 11 preguntas sobre la atención urológica durante la pandemia COVID-19 por los facultativos, seleccionando una muestra representativa de los pacientes atendidos en el periodo por teleconsulta. RESULTADOS: Doscientos pacientes fueron contactados telefónicamente para responder a una encuesta de calidad sobre teleconsulta. La distribución de pacientes encuestados entre las consultas monográficas fue homogénea entre el número de consultas citadas en el periodo, requiriendo el 18% de ellos ayuda por familiar. El 60% de los pacientes evitaron acudir a un centro médico durante la pandemia. El 42% de los pacientes encuestados tenían cancelada alguna prueba complementaria, el 59% alguna consulta médica, el 3,5% tratamientos y el 1% intervenciones. El 10% apreciaron un empeoramiento de su sintomatología urológica durante el confinamiento. La resolución subjetiva de la consulta por el facultativo fue alcanzada en el 72% de los casos, siendo la teleconsulta por el urólogo habitual en el 81%. El grado de satisfacción global con la teleconsulta fue de 9 (RIQ 8-10), considerando la teleconsulta como una «opción de asistencia sanitaria» pasada la crisis sanitaria por el 61,5% de los encuestados. CONCLUSIÓN: La teleconsulta ha sido valorada con un alto grado de satisfacción durante la pandemia COVID-19, ofreciendo asistencia continuada a los pacientes urológicos durante la crisis sanitaria. La calidad percibida ofrece un campo de asistencia telemática opcional en pacientes seleccionados, que debe reevaluarse fuera de una situación de confinamiento

INTRODUCTION: The global pandemic of COVID-19 has led to rapid implementation of telemedicine, but there is little information on patient satisfaction of this system as an alternative to face-to-face care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate urological patient satisfaction with teleconsultation during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational, prospective, cross-sectional, non-interventional study carried out by telephone survey during the period considered as the peak of the pandemic (March-April 2020). A quality survey composed of 11 questions on urological care provided by physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted, selecting a representative sample of patients attended by teleconsultation. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were contacted by telephone to answer a survey on the quality of teleconsultation. The distribution of patients surveyed among the specialized consultations was homogeneous with the number of consultations cited in the period; 18% of them required assistance from family members. Sixty percent of patients avoided going to a medical center during the pandemic. Of the surveyed patients, 42% had cancelled diagnostic tests, 59% had cancelled medical consultations, 3.5% had cancelled treatments and 1% had cancelled interventions. Ten percent reported a worsening of urological symptoms during confinement. According to physicians, consultations were effectively delivered in 72% of cases, with teleconsultation being carried out by their usual urologist in 81%. Teleconsultation overall satisfaction level was 9 (IQI8-10), and 61.5% of respondents consider teleconsultation as a «health care option» after the healthcare crisis. CONCLUSION: Teleconsultation has been evaluated with a high level of satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic, offering continuous care to urological patients during the healthcare crisis. The perceived quality offers a field of optional telematic assistance in selected patients, which should be re-evaluated in a period without confinement measures

Evaluation of teleconsultation system in the urological patient during the COVID-19 pandemic. / Evaluación de la teleconsulta en el paciente urológico durante la pandemia COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The global pandemic of COVID-19 has led to rapid implementation of telemedicine, but there is little information on patient satisfaction of this system as an alternative to face-to-face care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate urological patient satisfaction with teleconsultation during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational, prospective, cross-sectional, non-interventional study carried out by telephone survey during the period considered as the peak of the pandemic (March-April 2020). A quality survey composed of 11 questions on urological care provided by physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted, selecting a representative sample of patients attended by teleconsultation. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were contacted by telephone to answer a survey on the quality of teleconsultation. The distribution of patients surveyed among the specialized consultations was homogeneous with the number of consultations cited in the period; 18% of them required assistance from family members. Sixty percent of patients avoided going to a medical center during the pandemic. Of the surveyed patients, 42% had cancelled diagnostic tests, 59% had cancelled medical consultations, 3.5% had cancelled treatments and 1% had cancelled interventions. Ten percent reported a worsening of urological symptoms during confinement. According to physicians, consultations were effectively delivered in 72% of cases, with teleconsultation being carried out by their usual urologist in 81%. Teleconsultation overall satisfaction level was 9 (IQI8-10), and 61.5% of respondents consider teleconsultation as a «health care option¼ after the healthcare crisis. CONCLUSION: Teleconsultation has been evaluated with a high level of satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic, offering continuous care to urological patients during the healthcare crisis. The perceived quality offers a field of optional telematic assistance in selected patients, which should be re-evaluated in a period without confinement measures.

[Laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery. 5 years' experience]. / Cirugía conservadora de parénquima renal laparoscópica. Cinco años de experiencia.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery is among the most complex urological procedures currently performed. Open surgery continues to be the gold standard of care, but the laparoscopic approach is gaining ground slowly but surely. Our 5 years' experience is reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From September 2004 to March 2009, 38 laparoscopic nephron-sparing procedures were performed at our hospital. A transperitoneal laparoscopic approach was used in all cases, with en bloc clamping of renal hilum in most patients. RESULTS: Mean operating time was 141 min, mean intraoperative bleeding 130 mL, mean warm ischemia time 24 min, and mean hospital stay 3.3 days. Bleeding was the most common complication (requiring transfusion in 13.5% of patients). Positive surgical margins were found in 5.4% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate selection of the patient (tumor size, location) and the procedure to be used, surgeon experience, and surgical skills are essential for achieving good oncological results and for minimizing the complications of this demanding procedure.

Cirugía conservadora de parénquima renal laparoscópica. Cinco años de experiencia / Laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery. 5 years’ experience

Objetivo: La cirugía renal conservadora de parénquima laparoscópica es una de las técnicas más complejas que se pueden realizar en Urología en el momento actual. En la actualidad, la técnica abierta continúa siendo el gold standard, aunque lentamente la laparoscopia se va implantando. Presentamos nuestra serie de casi 5 años. Material y métodos: Desde septiembre de 2004 hasta marzo de 2009 se han realizado 38 cirugías conservadoras de parénquima renal por vía laparoscópica. Todas ellas se han realizado con el abordaje transperitoneal, con un clampaje en bloque del hilio renal en la mayoría de los casos. Resultados: El tiempo quirúrgico medio es de 141min, sangrado intraoperatorio medio de 130cm3, con un tiempo medio de clampaje de 24min y una estancia media postoperatoria de 3,3 días. La complicación más frecuente es el sangrado (transfusión, el 13,5%). El porcentaje de márgenes positivos es del 5,4%. Conclusiones: Con el fin de obtener unos buenos resultados oncológicos y reducir al mínimo las complicaciones, es fundamental la buena selección del caso (tamaño y localización del tumor) así como de la técnica que se va a emplear. La experiencia del cirujano y sus recursos laparoscópicos son de vital importancia (AU)

Introduction: Laparoscopic nephron-sparing surgery is among the most complex urological procedures currently performed. Open surgery continues to be the gold standard of care, but the laparoscopic approach is gaining ground slowly but surely. Our 5 years’ experience is reported. Materials and Methods: From September 2004 to March 2009, 38 laparoscopic nephron-sparing procedures were performed at our hospital. A transperitoneal laparoscopic approach was used in all cases, with en bloc clamping of renal hilum in most patients. Results: Mean operating time was 141min, mean intraoperative bleeding 130mL, mean warm ischemia time 24min, and mean hospital stay 3.3 days. Bleeding was the most common complication (requiring transfusion in 13.5% of patients). Positive surgical margins were found in 5.4% of patients. Conclusions: Adequate selection of the patient (tumor size, location) and the procedure to be used, surgeon experience, and surgical skills are essential for achieving good oncological results and for minimizing the complications of this demanding procedure (AU)