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











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Eur Urol Open Sci ; 35: 47-53, 2022 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35024631

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Open revision of ureteroenteric strictures (UESs) is associated with considerable morbidity. There is a lack of data evaluating the feasibility of robotic revisions. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the perioperative and functional outcomes of robot-assisted ureteroenteric reimplantation (RUER) for the management of UESs after radical cystectomy (RC). DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective multicenter study of 61 patients, who underwent 63 RUERs at seven high-volume institutions between 2009 and 2020 for benign UESs after RC, was conducted. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were reviewed for demographics, stricture characteristics, and perioperative outcomes. Variables associated with being stricture free after an RUER were evaluated using a multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 63 RUERs, 22 were right sided (35%), 34 left sided (54%), and seven bilateral (11%). Twenty-seven (44%) had prior abdominal/pelvic surgery and five (8%) radiotherapy (RT). Thirty-two patients had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores I-II (52%) and 29 ASA III (48%). Forty-two (68%) RUERs were in ileal conduits, 18 (29%) in neobladders, and two (3%) in Indiana pouch. The median time to diagnosis of a UES from cystectomy was 5 (3-11) mo. Of the UESs, 28 (44%) failed an endourological attempt (balloon dilatation/endoureterotomy). The median RUER operative time was 195 (175-269) min. No intraoperative complications or conversions to open approach were reported. Twenty-three (37%) patients had postoperative complications (20 [32%] were minor and three [5%] major). The median length of hospital stay was 3 (1-6) d and readmissions were 5%. After a median follow-up of 19 (8-43) mo, 84% of cases were stricture free. Lack of prior RT was the only variable associated with better stricture-free survival after RUER (hazard ratio 6.8, 95% confidence interval 1.10-42.00, p = 0.037). The study limitations include its retrospective nature and the small number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: RUER is a feasible procedure for the management of UESs. Prospective and larger studies are warranted to prove the safety and efficacy of this technique. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we investigate the feasibility of a novel minimally invasive technique for the management of ureteroenteric strictures. We conclude that robotic reimplantation is a feasible and effective procedure.

2.
Surg Endosc ; 32(6): 2831-2838, 2018 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29270799

RESUMO

Endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) is considered the technique of choice for selecting patients for transanal endoscopic surgery (TEM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of ERUS in patients with rectal tumors who later underwent TEM, and to analyze the factors that influence this accuracy. Observational study including prospective data collection of patients with rectal tumors undergoing TEM with curative intent between June 2004 and May 2016. Preoperative staging by EUS (uT) was correlated with the pathology results after TEM (pT). The accuracy of the EUS was evaluated and a series of variables (tumor morphology, height, lesion size, quadrant, definitive pathology, the surgeon assessing the ERUS, and waiting time from the date of the ERUS until surgery) were analyzed as possible predictors of diagnostic accuracy. Six hundred and fifty-one patients underwent TEM, of whom 495 met the inclusion criteria. The overall accuracy of EUS was 78%, sensitivity 83.78%, specificity 20%, PPV 91.3%, and NPV 11%. Forty patients (8.08%) were understaged and 50 (10.9%) were overstaged. In the multivariate analysis, the surgeon's experience emerged as the most important predictor of accuracy (p < 0.001; OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.681-4.512). The EUS was less accurate with larger lesions (p = 0.004; OR 0.219, 95% CI 0.137-0.349) and when the definitive diagnosis was adenocarcinoma (p < 0.001; OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.746-0.946). ERUS accuracy rates are variable and there is a possibility of understaging and overstaging that must be taken into consideration. This accuracy is dependent on the operator's experience as well on lesion size; in addition, it is lower for lesions shown to be cancers in the final pathology report.


Assuntos
Adenocarcinoma/diagnóstico , Endossonografia/métodos , Estadiamento de Neoplasias/métodos , Neoplasias Retais/diagnóstico , Cirurgia Endoscópica Transanal/métodos , Adenocarcinoma/cirurgia , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Seleção de Pacientes , Estudos Prospectivos , Neoplasias Retais/cirurgia , Reto , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA