RESUMEN
PURPOSE: We performed a nationwide survey of Brazilian urologists to study behaviors toward radiation exposure and the use of protective and monitoring equipment. METHODS: A 13-question e-mail questionnaire was sent to 4,526 Brazilian urologists; the questions addressed demographic characteristics, radiation exposure, and the utilization of shielding devices and dosimeters. The reasons why these devices were not used were also investigated. RESULTS: A total of 332 completed questionnaires were analyzed (7.3 %); the median age of the respondents was 43.3 ± 10.8 years. Lead aprons and thyroid protection are utilized in every procedure by 84.4 and 53.89 % of respondents, respectively. Protective eyeglasses are never used by 72.12 % of the respondents. Older urologists were more likely not to use adequate protection. Of the urologists who responded, 76.42 % never use dosimeters. CONCLUSION: This study shows an unsatisfactory utilization of radiation-shielding devices and dosimeters, revealing a low compliance to the as low as reasonably achievable principle among Brazilian urologists.
Asunto(s)
Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Exposición Profesional/prevención & control , Equipos de Seguridad/estadística & datos numéricos , Protección Radiológica/métodos , Urología/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Brasil , Femenino , Dosimetría por Película/estadística & datos numéricos , Fluoroscopía , Humanos , Litotricia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Nefrostomía Percutánea , Salud Laboral , Protección Radiológica/instrumentación , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
Abstract Purpose: We performed a systemic review with meta-analysis to compare tubeless vs conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and assess the effectiveness and safety of this innovative procedure. Materials and Methods: A systematic review of PUBMED, EMBASE, LILACS, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared tubeless PCNL vs conventional PCNL. The analyzed outcomes were stone-free rate, pain assessment, analgesic medication requirements, operative time, hospitalization time, blood loss, and complications. Results: A total of 10 RCTs were identified that reported 621 patients. Seven studies analyzed stone-free rates. Meta-analysis of the data resulted in no difference between tubeless and conventional PCNL. Operative time, blood transfusion, hemoglobin drop and postoperative fever did not differ between the groups. Meta-analysis of length of hospitalization and prolonged urinary drainage was analyzed and favored the tubeless PCNL group. Conclusions: Tubeless PCNL is a safe and effective procedure with a stone clearance rate comparable to that of conventional PCNL. Tubeless PCNL presented a shorter hospital stay and less postoperative urinary leakage. Pain reduction and minimization of analgesic requirements also were demonstrated.