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












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
BJU Int ; 126(2): 225-234, 2020 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32383520

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To determine the risk of COVID-19 transmission during minimally invasive surgical (MIS) procedures METHODS: Surgical society statements regarding the risk of COVID transmission during MIS procedures were reviewed. In addition, the available literature on COVID-19 and other viral transmission in CO2 pneumoperitoneum, as well as the presence of virus in the plume created by electrocautery during MIS was reviewed. The society recommendations were compared to the available literature on the topic to create our review and recommendations to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. RESULTS: The recommendations promulgated by various surgical societies evolved over time as more information became available on COVID-19 transmission. Review of the available literature on the presence of COVID-19 in CO2 pneumoperitoneum was inconclusive. There is no clear evidence of the presence of COVID-19 in plume created by electrocautery. Technologies to reduce CO2 pneumoperitoneum release into the operating room as well as filter viral particles are available and should reduce the exposure risk to operating room personnel. CONCLUSION: There is no clear evidence of COVID-19 virus in the CO2 used during MIS procedures or in the plume created by electrocautery. Until the presence or absence of COVID-19 viral particles has been clearly established, measures to mitigate CO2 and surgical cautery plume release into the operating room should be performed. Further study on the presence of COVID-19 in MIS pneumoperitoneum and cautery plume is needed.


Asunto(s)
Betacoronavirus , Infecciones por Coronavirus/transmisión , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa/prevención & control , Control de Infecciones/normas , Quirófanos/normas , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral/transmisión , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/normas , COVID-19 , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Salud Global , Humanos , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2
2.
J Robot Surg ; 12(2): 325-330, 2018 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28831728

RESUMEN

Robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is well established as a safe and effective treatment for prostate cancer. According to published studies, patients undergoing RARP are at increased risk of being diagnosed with an inguinal hernia after RARP and are four times more likely to have an inguinal hernia repair (IHR) following RARP. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of IHR during RARP. Overall, it has been observed that IHR adds on average, 12-15 min in total surgical time and there were no significant differences between RARP with or without IHR with respect to postoperative complications. This study analyzes a large series of patients undergoing RARP (1100) and compares them to a group that underwent RARP with IHR (39). Between December 2008 and January 2015, 1139 patients underwent RARP at Florida Hospital in Celebration, FL. Of the total patients, 39 underwent concomitant IHR. All procedures were performed by the same surgeons (urologist and general surgeon), using the same techniques of RARP and TAPP inguinal hernia repair. After 30 days, the differences were evaluated between groups regarding surgical time, EBL and postoperative complications. The average age of patients undergoing the procedure was 61.65 years. The mean procedure time was approximately 120 min (min), with an additional period of 68 min for IHR (mean = 188; p = 0.0001). There was a significant difference in BMI between the groups, 28.3 kg/m2 for patients undergoing RARP and 26.8 kg/m2 for those who underwent RARP and IHR (p = 0.028). The EBL averaged 110.87 mL, with no significant difference between groups (p = 0371). There was no significant association between clinical stage of the patient and the type of procedure performed (p = 12:35). There was no significant difference in the presence of comorbidities and the operation preformed. There were 61 events recorded postoperatively, 57 (5.2%) among patients who underwent only RARP and 4 (10.26%) among those who had both. Taken together, the small amounts of complications in both groups prevent statistical significance. This study compared two groups of patients undergoing RARP: those with IHR and those without. Our study demonstrated an increase in surgical time; however, there was no increase in postoperative complications. From the data presented, we suggest that the performance of both procedures concomitantly is feasible and safe.


Asunto(s)
Hernia Inguinal/cirugía , Herniorrafia , Prostatectomía , Neoplasias de la Próstata/cirugía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados , Estudios de Cohortes , Comorbilidad , Hernia Inguinal/epidemiología , Herniorrafia/efectos adversos , Herniorrafia/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Próstata/cirugía , Prostatectomía/efectos adversos , Prostatectomía/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias de la Próstata/epidemiología , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/estadística & datos numéricos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...