Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtros adicionais

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


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.

J Infect Chemother ; 25(10): 791-796, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31103341


OBJECTIVES: To study risk factors for sepsis and mortality evaluating the role of platelet to leucocytic count ratio (PLR) as a marker for urosepsis and clinical outcomes in cases of emphysematous pyelonephritis (EPN). MATERIALS: Patients with EPN were retrospectively reviewed. Patients' age, sex, diabetes mellitus (DM), Body Mass Index (BMI), hydronephrosis, types of EPN, air locules volume, serum creatinine, leucocytic count, and platelet count, PLR, albumin, INR and the line of treatment were analyzed as risk factors of sepsis. Correlation between PLR and other variables was done using Pearson correlation coefficient. Univariate and multivariate analyses for sepsis and mortality were performed. RESULTS: Of fifty four patients, 38 patients had SIRS ≥2 criteria on admission. Twenty patients developed sepsis requiring ICU admission. In univariate analysis, male gender, lower BMI, higher INR, higher WBCs count and lower PLR were associated with sepsis (P = 0.0001, 0.009, 0.04, 0.003 and 0.001, respectively). In multivariate analysis, PLR ≤18.4, male sex and BMI ≤24.2 were independent risk factors. Lower PLR directly correlated with serum albumin (P = 0.01) and inversely correlated with serum creatinine and random blood glucose level and Klebsiella infection (P = 0.001, 0.007 and 0.005, respectively). Also, it was correlated with a higher total score of qSOFA and SOFA (P = 0.02 and 0.04). Lower PLR was independent risk factors for death in EPN patients with (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: EPN is associated with sepsis development. Lower PLR is an independent simple predictor for sepsis and mortality in patients with EPN.

Urology ; 2018 Jul 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30031005


OBJECTIVE: To assess the non-inferiority of Low-power Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (LP-HoLEP) to high-power (HP-HoLEP) for enucleation efficiency pertaining to the advantages of lower cost and minimal postoperative dysuria, storage symptoms, and negative sexual impact. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HoLEP was performed using 100W Versapulse, Luminis Inc., with 2J/25Hz for LP-HoLEP (61 patients) and 2J/50Hz for HP-HoLEP (60 patients). Two surgeons with different experience performed equal number of both procedures. Non-inferiority of enucleation efficiency (enucleated weight/min) was evaluated. All perioperative parameters were recorded and compared. Dysuria was assessed at 2 weeks by dysuria visual analog scale, urinary (Q.max and IPSS) and sexual (sexual health inventory for men score) outcome measures were evaluated at 1, 4, and 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline and perioperative parameters were comparable between the two groups. Mean enucleation efficiency was 1.42±0.6 vs 1.47±0.6 gm/min, P = .6 following LP-HoLEP and HP-HoLEP, respectively. Patients reported postoperative dysuria similarly in both groups as per dysuria visual analog scale. There was significant comparable improvement in IPSS (international prostate symptom score) and Q.max in both groups at different follow-up points. At one year, median IPSS and Q.max were comparable in both groups (P = .4 and .7 following LP-HoLEP and HP-HoLEP, respectively). Median postoperative reduction in prostate specific antigen was 89% (42:99) following LP-HoLEP vs 81% (62:94) after HP-HoLEP, P = .92. Both groups showed comparable perioperative and late postoperative complications. There were no statistically significant changes in the last follow-up sexual health inventory for men score in comparison to baseline score. CONCLUSION: LP-HoLEP is non-inferior to HP-HoLEP in terms of all efficiency parameters regardless level of surgeon experience.