Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
1.
J Urol ; 207(2): 277-283, 2022 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34555934

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Daily aspirin use following cardiovascular intervention is commonplace and creates concern regarding bleeding risk in patients undergoing surgery. Despite its cardio-protective role, aspirin is often discontinued 5-7 days prior to major surgery due to bleeding concerns. Single institution studies have investigated perioperative outcomes of aspirin use in robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). We sought to evaluate the outcomes of perioperative aspirin (pASA) use during RPN in a multicenter setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective evaluation of patients undergoing RPN at 5 high volume RPN institutions. We compared perioperative outcomes of patients taking pASA (81 mg) to those not on aspirin. We analyzed the association between pASA use and perioperative transfusion. RESULTS: Of 1,565 patients undergoing RPN, 228 (14.5%) patients continued pASA and were older (62.8 vs 56.8 years, p <0.001) with higher Charlson scores (mean 3 vs 2, p <0.001). pASA was associated with increased perioperative blood transfusions (11% vs 4%, p <0.001) and major complications (10% vs 3%, p <0.001). On multivariable analysis, pASA was associated with increased transfusion risk (OR 1.94, 1.10-3.45, 95% CI). CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, perioperative aspirin 81 mg use during RPN is reasonable and safe; however, there is a higher risk of blood transfusions and major complications. Future studies are needed to clarify the role of antiplatelet therapy in RPN patients requiring pASA for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular events.


Assuntos
Perda Sanguínea Cirúrgica/estatística & dados numéricos , Neoplasias Renais/cirurgia , Nefrectomia/efeitos adversos , Inibidores da Agregação Plaquetária/efeitos adversos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos/efeitos adversos , Idoso , Aspirina/efeitos adversos , Perda Sanguínea Cirúrgica/prevenção & controle , Transfusão de Sangue/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Nefrectomia/métodos , Nefrectomia/estatística & dados numéricos , Assistência Perioperatória/efeitos adversos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos/estatística & dados numéricos , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
Curr Urol Rep ; 20(9): 50, 2019 Jul 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31342172

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this paper was to evaluate the current use of enterocystoplasty, a historical operation for bladder dysfunction but with continued and increasing modern relevance. RECENT FINDINGS: Since the advent of third line neuromodulation techniques for neurogenic and idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB), the usage of enterocystoplasty has decreased. However, this procedure continues to be utilized in pediatric urology patients and the most refractory OAB patients. Adult urologist should be familiar with this operative technique in an effort to manage pediatric patients transitioning to adulthood. Minimally invasive techniques for this surgical procedure have been described with very limited outcome data. It is important for all urologists to be familiar with enterocystoplasty, both technically and with the unique needs of these patients postoperatively. Further studies evaluating the outcomes of this procedure in idiopathic overactive bladder patients and efforts to standardize recommendations for neurogenic bladder patients will help guide care in the future.


Assuntos
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos do Sistema Digestório/métodos , Íleo/cirurgia , Doenças da Bexiga Urinária/cirurgia , Bexiga Urinária/cirurgia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Urológicos/métodos , Adulto , Anastomose Cirúrgica , Criança , Humanos , Procedimentos de Cirurgia Plástica/métodos , Bexiga Urinaria Neurogênica/cirurgia , Bexiga Urinária Hiperativa/cirurgia
3.
Cancers (Basel) ; 14(7)2022 Mar 31.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35406553

RESUMO

Background: Measuring quality of care indicators is important for clinicians and decision making in health care to improve patient outcomes. Objective: The primary objective was to identify quality of care indicators for patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and to validate these in an international cohort treated with radical nephroureterectomy (RNU). The secondary objective was to assess the factors associated with failure to validate the pentafecta. Design: We performed a retrospective multicenter study of patients treated with RNU for EAU high-risk (HR) UTUC. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Five quality indicators were consensually approved, including a negative surgical margin, a complete bladder-cuff resection, the absence of hematological complications, the absence of major complications, and the absence of a 12-month postoperative recurrence. After multiple imputations and propensity-score matching, log-rank tests and a Cox regression were used to assess the survival outcomes. Logistic regression analyses assessed predictors for pentafecta failure. Results: Among the 1718 included patients, 844 (49%) achieved the pentafecta. The median follow-up was 31 months. Patients who achieved the pentafecta had superior 5-year overall- (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) compared to those who did not (68.7 vs. 50.1% and 79.8 vs. 62.7%, respectively, all p < 0.001). On multivariable analyses, achieving the pentafecta was associated with improved recurrence-free survival (RFS), CSS, and OS. No preoperative clinical factors predicted a failure to validate the pentafecta. Conclusions: Establishing quality indicators for UTUC may help define prognosis and improve patient care. We propose a pentafecta quality criteria in RNU patients. Approximately half of the patients evaluated herein reached this endpoint, which in turn was independently associated with survival outcomes. Extended validation is needed.

4.
Urol Case Rep ; 38: 101724, 2021 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34136358

RESUMO

We report a 31 year old female with urologic history significant for right ureteropelvic junction obstruction managed with open right pyeloplasty in 1996 with recurrent stricture managed with right ureterocalycostomy in 1997 along with right distal ureteroneocystostomy for iatrogenic distal ureteral stricture. She developed symptomatic stone episodes and recurrent urinary tract infections and elected to proceed with shockwave lithotripsy. Postoperatively she developed a large liver hemorrhage requiring supportive care and endovascular embolization.

5.
Eur Urol Open Sci ; 30: 37-43, 2021 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34337546

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Renal mass biopsy (RMB) has had limited and varied utilization to guide management of renal masses (RM). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate utilization of RMB for newly diagnosed cT1 RMs across diverse practice types and assess associations of outcomes with RMB. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: MUSIC-KIDNEY commenced data collection in September 2017 for all newly presenting patients with a cT1 RM at 14 diverse practices. Patients were assessed at ≥120 d after initial evaluation. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Demographics and outcomes were compared for patients undergoing RMB versus no RMB. Clinical and demographic characteristics were summarized by RMB status using a χ2 test for categorical variables and Student t test for continuous variables. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was constructed to identify associations with RMB receipt. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: RMB was performed in 15.5% (n = 282) of 1808 patients with a cT1 RM. Practice level rates varied from 0% to 100% (p = 0.001), with only five of 14 practices using RMB in >20% of patients. On multivariate analysis, predictors of RMB included greater comorbidity (Charlson comorbidity index ≥2 vs 0: odds ratio [OR] 1.44; p = 0.025) and solid lesion type (cystic vs solid: OR 0.17; p = 0.001; indeterminate vs solid: OR 0.58; p = 0.01). RMB patients were less likely to have benign pathology at intervention (5.0% vs 13.5%; p = 0.01). No radical nephrectomies were performed for patients with benign histology at RMB. The limitations include short follow-up and inclusion of practices with low numbers of RMBs. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of RMB varied widely across practices. Factors associated with RMB include comorbidities and lesion type. Patients undergoing RMB were less likely to have benign histology at intervention. PATIENT SUMMARY: Current use of biopsy for kidney tumors is low and varies across our collaborative. Biopsy was performed in patients with greater comorbidity (more additional medical conditions) and for solid kidney tumors. Pretreatment biopsy is associated with lower nonmalignant pathology detected at treatment.

6.
Urology ; 141: 7-11, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32330531

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To describe and evaluate a risk-stratified triage pathway for inpatient urology consultations during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. This pathway seeks to outline a urology patient care strategy that reduces the transmission risk to both healthcare providers and patients, reduces the healthcare burden, and maintains appropriate patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consultations to the urology service during a 3-week period (March 16 to April 2, 2020) were triaged and managed via one of 3 pathways: Standard, Telemedicine, or High-Risk. Standard consults were in-person consults with non COVID-19 patients, High-Risk consults were in-person consults with COVID-19 positive/suspected patients, and Telemedicine consults were telephonic consults for low-acuity urologic issues in either group of patients. Patient demographics, consultation parameters and consultation outcomes were compared to consultations from the month of March 2019. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square test and continuous variables using Mann-Whitney U test. A P value <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Between March 16 and April 2, 2020, 53 inpatient consultations were performed. By following our triage pathway, a total of 19/53 consultations (35.8%) were performed via Telemedicine with no in-person exposure, 10/53 consultations (18.9%) were High-Risk, in which we strictly controlled the urology team member in-person contact, and the remainder, 24/53 consultations (45.2%), were performed as Standard in-person encounters. COVID-19 associated consultations represented 18/53 (34.0%) of all consultations during this period, and of these, 8/18 (44.4%) were managed successfully via Telemedicine alone. No team member developed COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, most urology consultations can be managed in a patient and physician safety-conscious manner, by implementing a novel triage pathway.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Procedimentos Clínicos/organização & administração , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Encaminhamento e Consulta/organização & administração , Telemedicina/organização & administração , Urologia , Adulto , Idoso , COVID-19 , Feminino , Hospitalização , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Medição de Risco , SARS-CoV-2 , Triagem/organização & administração
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA