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










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Investig Clin Urol ; 60(4): 251-257, 2019 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31294134

RESUMO

Purpose: To compare the safety and efficacy of xylocaine gel and ketorolac as opioid-sparing analgesia compared with pethidine for shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) pain. Materials and Methods: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed in 132 patients with renal and upper ureteral stones amenable to treatment with SWL. The first patient group received intravenous (IV) pethidine and placebo gel; the second group received IV ketorolac plus placebo gel; the third group received lidocaine gel locally plus normal saline IV. Stone disintegration was classified as none (no change from basal by kidney, ureter, bladder X-ray or ultrasound [US] imaging), partial (fragmented and >4-mm residual fragments), and complete (≤4-mm residual fragments). Stone disintegration was assessed by kidney-ureter-bladder X-ray and US imaging. Pain was evaluated by use of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Results: The NPRS scores were highest in the xylocaine group at 10, 20, and 30 minutes (p=0.0001) with no significant difference between the ketorolac and pethidine groups, except at 10 minutes (p=0.03) and a near significant difference at 30 minutes (p=0.054) in favor of ketorolac. Results for stone disintegration (none, partial, and complete, respectively) were as follows: 25 (50.0%), 23 (46.0%), and 2 (4.0%) for pethidine; 19 (35.8%), 23 (43.4%), and 11 (20.8%) for ketorolac; and 26 (89.7%), 3 (10.3%), and 0 (0.0%) for lidocaine (p=0.008). Conclusions: Ketorolac is a safe and more effective alternative to morphine derivatives for SWL analgesia. Lidocaine gel should not be used as mono-analgesia for SWL.

2.
World J Urol ; 36(11): 1845-1852, 2018 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29736609

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of three chemoprophylaxis approaches in prevention of post-transrectal biopsy infectious complications (TBICs). METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive ciprofloxacin 3 days 500 mg B.I.D 3 days starting the night prior to biopsy (standard prophylaxis), augmented prophylaxis using ciprofloxacin and single preprocedure shot of 160 mg gentamicin IM (augmented prophylaxis) and rectal swab culture-based prophylaxis (targeted prophylaxis). Patients were assessed 2 weeks prior to biopsy, at biopsy and 2 weeks after. Primary end point was occurrence of post-TBICs that included simple UTI, febrile UTI or sepsis. Secondary end points were post-biopsy change in the inflammatory markers (TLC, ESR and CRP), unplanned visits, hospitalization and occurrence of fluoroquinolones resistance (FQ-R; bacterial growth on MacConkey agar plate with 10 µg/ml ciprofloxacin) in the fecal carriage of screened men. RESULTS: Between April/2015 and January/2017, standard, augmented and targeted prophylaxes were given to 163, 166 and 167 patients, respectively. Post-TBICs were reported in 43 (26%), 13 (7.8%) and 34 (20.3%) patients following standard, augmented and targeted prophylaxes protocols, respectively (P = 0.000). Post-TBICs included UTI in 23 (4.6%), febrile UTI in 41 (8.2%) and sepsis in 26 (5.2%) patients. Significantly lower number of post-biopsy positive urine culture was depicted in the augmented group (P = 0.000). The number of biopsy cores was statistically different in the three groups (P = 0.004). On multivariate analysis, augmented prophylaxis had independently lower post-TBICs (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.4, P = 0.000) when compared with the other two groups regardless of the number of biopsy cores taken (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95-1.17, P = 0.229). Post-biopsy hospitalization was needed in four (2%), one (0.6%) and ten (6%) patients following standard, augmented and targeted prophylaxes, respectively (P = 0.014). However, sepsis-related hospitalization was not statistically different. Post-biopsy changes in the inflammatory markers were significantly less in augmented prophylaxis (P < 0.05). FQ-R was depicted in 139 (83.2%) of the screened men. CONCLUSION: Augmented prophylaxis with single-dose gentamicin is an effective and practical approach. Targeted prophylaxis might be reserved for cases with contraindication to gentamicin.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Antibioticoprofilaxia/métodos , Biópsia com Agulha de Grande Calibre/métodos , Ciprofloxacino/uso terapêutico , Gentamicinas/uso terapêutico , Próstata/patologia , Sepse/prevenção & controle , Infecções Urinárias/prevenção & controle , Adenocarcinoma/diagnóstico , Adenocarcinoma/patologia , Idoso , Glicemia/metabolismo , Sedimentação Sanguínea , Proteína C-Reativa/metabolismo , Técnicas de Cultura , Febre/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Hiperplasia Prostática/diagnóstico , Hiperplasia Prostática/patologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Prostatite/diagnóstico , Prostatite/patologia , Reto/microbiologia , Sepse/epidemiologia , Cateterismo Urinário/estatística & dados numéricos , Infecções Urinárias/epidemiologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA