Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
World J Gastroenterol ; 25(32): 4614-4628, 2019 Aug 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31528090

RESUMO

Liver cancers are the second most frequent cause of global cancer-related mortality of which 90% are attributable to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Despite the advent of screening programmes for patients with known risk factors, a substantial number of patients are ineligible for curative surgery at presentation with limited outcomes achievable with systemic chemotherapy/external radiotherapy. This has led to the advent of numerous minimally invasive options including but not limited to trans-arterial chemoembolization, radiofrequency/microwave ablation and more recently selective internal radiation therapy many of which are often the first-line treatment for select stages of HCC or serve as a conduit to liver transplant. The authors aim to provide a comprehensive overview of these various image guided minimally invasive therapies with a brief focus on the technical aspects accompanied by a critical analysis of the literature to assess the most up-to-date evidence from comparative systematic reviews and meta-analyses finishing with an assessment of novel combination regimens and future directions of travel.


Assuntos
Carcinoma Hepatocelular/terapia , Gastroenterologia/métodos , Neoplasias Hepáticas/terapia , Oncologia/métodos , Técnicas de Ablação/métodos , Técnicas de Ablação/tendências , Antineoplásicos/administração & dosagem , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/mortalidade , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/patologia , Quimioembolização Terapêutica/métodos , Quimioembolização Terapêutica/tendências , Terapia Combinada/métodos , Terapia Combinada/tendências , Gastroenterologia/tendências , Humanos , Neoplasias Hepáticas/mortalidade , Neoplasias Hepáticas/patologia , Oncologia/tendências , Metanálise como Assunto , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Minimamente Invasivos/métodos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Minimamente Invasivos/tendências , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Intervalo Livre de Progressão , Radiografia Intervencionista/métodos , Radiografia Intervencionista/tendências , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto
2.
Int. braz. j. urol ; 43(3): 394-406, May.-June 2017. graf
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS | ID: biblio-840842

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Background Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first line treatment modality for a significant proportion of patients with upper urinary tracts stones. Simple analgesics, opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are all suitable agents but the relative efficacy and tolerability of these agents is uncertain. Objectives To determine the efficacy of the different types of analgesics used for the control of pain during SWL for urinary stones. Materials and Methods We searched the Cochrane Renal Group’s Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and also hand-searched reference lists of relevant articles (Figure-1). Randomised controlled trials (RCT’s) comparing the use of any opioid, simple analgesic or NSAID during SWL were included. These were compared with themselves, each-other or placebo. We included any route or form of administration (bolus, PCA). We excluded agents that were used for their sedative qualities. Data were extracted and assessed for quality independently by three reviewers. Meta-analyses have been performed where possible. When not possible, descriptive analyses of variables were performed. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and measurements on continuous scales are reported as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals. Results Overall, we included 9 RCTs (539 participants from 6 countries). Trial agents included 7 types of NSAIDs, 1 simple analgesic and 4 types of opioids. There were no significant differences in clinical efficacy or tolerability between a simple analgesic (paracetamol) and an NSAID (lornoxicam). When comparing the same simple analgesic with an opioid (tramadol), both agents provided safe and effective analgesia for the purpose of SWL with no significant differences. There were no significant differences in pain scores between NSAIDs or opioids in three studies. Adequate analgesia could be achieved more often for opioids than for NSAIDs (RR 0.358; 95% CI 043 to 0.77, P=0.0002) but consumed doses of rescue analgesia were similar between NSAIDs and opioids in two studies (P=0.58, >0.05). In terms of tolerability, there is no difference in post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) between the groups (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.17, P=0.55). One study compared outcomes between two types of NSAIDs (diclofenac versus dexketoprofen). There were no significant differences in any of our pre-defined outcomes measures. Conclusion Simple analgesics, NSAIDs and opioids can all reduce the pain associated with shock wave lithotripsy to a level where the procedure is tolerated. Whilst there are no compelling differences in safety or efficacy of simple analgesics and NSAIDs, analgesia is described as adequate more often for opioids than NSAIDs.


Assuntos
Humanos , Litotripsia/efeitos adversos , Cálculos Urinários/cirurgia , Analgesia/métodos , Analgésicos/administração & dosagem , Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Dor Pós-Operatória/tratamento farmacológico , Analgésicos/classificação
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA