RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine if prostatic inflammation at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP) was associated with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). METHODS: We performed a proof of principle analytic case control study of patients who underwent RP between January 2005 and August 2008 for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). We reviewed pathology slides of those who had a change of 4 points or greater, as measured by the IPSS and correlated inflammation with change in IPSS. Multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to determine the association of IPSS with degree of inflammation based on the number of inflammatory cells. RESULTS: Of 249 patients, 136 had complete data and 47 (18.8%) underwent pathologic review. The median change in IPSS for the study cohort was -7.0 points compared to +1.0 point for the control cohort. On univariate analysis, the average improvement in IPSS in patients with severe inflammation was (r = -6.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.0 to -1.1, P = .018) after RP. On multivariate analysis, adjusting for age, body mass index (BMI), year of surgery, history of prostatitis, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate weight, and nerve sparing status, only patients with severe prostatic inflammation had significant improvement in their IPSS (r = -5.93, 95% CI -10.81 to -1.04, P = .004). CONCLUSION: Prostatic inflammation measured in prostatectomy specimens is associated with worse baseline IPSS than matched cohorts. Specifically, severe inflammation is an independent predictor of IPSS improvement at 1 year after RP.
Asunto(s)
Síntomas del Sistema Urinario Inferior/complicaciones , Síntomas del Sistema Urinario Inferior/cirugía , Prostatectomía , Prostatitis/complicaciones , Prostatitis/cirugía , Anciano , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Prostatitis/diagnóstico , Inducción de Remisión , Estudios Retrospectivos , Índice de Severidad de la EnfermedadRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Nerve injury associated with patient positioning during surgery is well documented. With the development of robotic surgery, surgeons are faced with new surgical positioning, requiring attention to ensure patient safety. Published reports that address positioning injury during robotic surgery are sparse and none address the overall incidence. In this study we determine the incidence of positioning injury during robotic assisted urological surgery, identify risk factors and describe the time to resolution of the neurological injury. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed all adult urological cases at our institution that used the da Vinci® Si and da Vinci Standard® Surgical System from January 2010 to December 2011. We characterized risk factors into the 4 domains of positioning, operative, patient specific and anesthesia related. Within these 4 categories we collected data on 13 specific aspects of patient care to determine their association with positioning injury. RESULTS: Of 334 operations 22 positioning injuries (6.6%) were documented. Of these injuries 13 (59.1%) resolved within 1 month, 4 (18.2%) resolved between 1 and 6 months, and 5 (22.7%) persisted beyond 6 months. We found operative time (p <0.0001), in-room time (p <0.0001) and ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) class (p = 0.0033) were significantly associated with injury. CONCLUSIONS: Positioning injuries are under recognized in robotic assisted urological surgery and may persist beyond 6 months. Consideration must be given to counseling patients about the risks of positioning injuries, especially for long operations. Patients with multiple medical comorbidities (ASA class 4) are particularly at risk for these injuries.
Asunto(s)
Posicionamiento del Paciente , Robótica , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Urogenitales/efectos adversos , Enfermedades Urológicas/cirugía , Distribución de Chi-Cuadrado , Femenino , Humanos , Enfermedad Iatrogénica , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) according to the universal classification (UC) are unknown. We investigated whether the outcome of these patients is better predicted by the UC than the ST-segment classification (STC). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 348 consecutive patients with AMI with mean follow-up of 30.6 months. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [composite of all causes of death and AMI]. RESULTS: The study included ST-segment elevation (STEMI) = 168 (48%), non-ST-segment elevation (NSTEMI) = 180 (52%), Type 1 = 278 (80%), Type 2 = 55 (15.8%), Type 3 = 5 (1.4%), Type 4a = 2 (0.6%), Type 4b = 5 (1.4%), and Type 5 = 3 (0.9%). During follow-up, 102 (29.3%) patients had MACE, 80 (23%) patients died, and 31 (8.9%) had an AMI. The adjusted risk of MACE was similar for NSTEMI and STEMI (HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.77-2.03, P = .35) but was significantly lower for patients with Type 2 AMI as compared to Type 1 (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.90, P= .02). The UC, peak troponin levels, discharge glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score were independent predictors of MACE (all, P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The UC is an independent predictor of long-term outcomes in AMI patients compared to the STC. Type 2 AMI has less than half the risk of MACE as Type 1 AMI. Future studies should report outcomes of AMI patients according to the UC types.
Asunto(s)
Indicadores de Salud , Infarto del Miocardio/clasificación , Anciano , Distribución de Chi-Cuadrado , Femenino , Humanos , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Infarto del Miocardio/diagnóstico , Infarto del Miocardio/mortalidad , Infarto del Miocardio/terapia , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Pronóstico , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Recurrencia , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To study the inter-physician reliability using the universal classification (UC) of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared to the ST-segment classification (STC). The UC is based on clinical, electrocardiographic (ECG), and pathophysiologic characteristics compared to the STC, which is mainly ECG based. METHODS: In this registry of consecutive patients with AMI presenting to a tertiary hospital, we studied the inter-physician reliability [weighted kappa (wK)] using the UC and the STC. Two physician investigators independently classified each patient with AMI according to the UC and STC, and a third senior physician investigator resolved any disagreement. RESULTS: The study included Type 1=226 (89.7%), Type 2=16 (6.3%), Type 3=3 (1.2%), Type 4a=1 (0.4%), Type 4b=4 (1.6%), Type 5=2 (0.8%), ST-segment-elevation AMI (STEMI)=140 (55.6%), and non-ST-segment-elevation AMI (NSTEMI)=112 (44.4%). Inter-physician reliability using the UC was very good (wK=0.84, 95% CI 0.68-0.99) and using the STC was good (wK=0.78, 95% CI 0.70-0.86). Of patients with Type 1 AMI, 57.1% were STEMI and 42.9% were NSTEMI. In contrast, of patients with Type 2 AMI, 18.8% were STEMI and 81.2% were NSTEMI. CONCLUSION: The UC is a reliable method to classify patients with AMI and performs better than the STC in this study. Validation of the two classifications should be performed in large prospective studies.