RESUMEN

Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar la eficacia y las complicaciones asociadas con la resección transuretral (RTU) de malla intravesical después de la cirugía con TOT (Monarc(TM)) o «minisling» (MiniArc(R)) para tratar la incontinencia urinaria de esfuerzo femenina (IUE). Material y métodos: Estudio retrospectivo de 9 mujeres consecutivas, todas ellas con perforación intravesical de cintilla suburetral: 3 en pacientes tratadas con cabestrillo transobturador, Monarc(TM) y 6 en pacientes con «minisling», MiniArc(R). Todas las pacientes fueron tratadas con RTU con asa con energía bipolar. La técnica incluye la identificación de la malla intravesical, la eliminación completa con el resector de energía bipolar hasta que no era visible más malla y se alcanzó el tejido sano perivesical. Resultados: La edad media de nuestras pacientes fue de 61 años. El tiempo medio de aparición de síntomas tras la cirugía por IUE fue 13 meses (1-79) y el tiempo medio hasta la RTU de 16 meses (1-91). Cinco mujeres (55,5%), desarrollaron litiasis vesicales. El tiempo de operación promedio fue de 29,4 ± 10,4 min y la estancia media hospitalaria fue de 2,6 ± 0,5 días. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 38 meses (rango: 14-109 meses) después de la eliminación de malla. No se encontraron complicaciones. Conclusión: El uso de la resección transuretral para tratar las perforaciones vesicales tras cirugía vaginal con malla es fácil de realizar y en nuestro grupo tiene excelentes resultados

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy as well as the complications associated with transurethral removal (TUR) of intravesical mesh after suburethral sling, transobturator tape-TOT (Monarc(TM)) or 'minisling' (MiniArc(R)), in the treatment of female urinary stress incontinence (USI). Material and methods: retrospective and consecutive study on 9 women with bladder perforation after midurethral slings (3 Monarc(TM) and 6 MiniArc(R)) placement for urinary stress incontinence. To remove the mesh, transurethral resection with an electrode loop (TUR-E) was used. The technique included: location and total removal of mesh with bipolar resectoscope up to healthy tissue. Results: The median age was 61 years (49-70 years). The median time between midurethral sling placement and onset the sympltoms was 13 months (1-79 months). and between sling placement and mesh removal was 16 months (1-91 months). Five women (55.5%) developed bladder stones. Mean operating time was 29.4 ± 10.4 minutes and mean length of hospital stay was 2.6 ± 0.5 days. The median follow-up after mesh removal was 38 months (range, 14 to 109 months). No complications were found. Conclusions: The use of transurethral resection of intravesical mesh after suburethral slings is easy and the results obtained by our surgical team are excellent

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy as well as the complications associated with transurethral removal (TUR) of intravesical mesh after suburethral sling, transobturator tape-TOT (Monarc™) or "minisling" (MiniArc(®)), in the treatment of female urinary stress incontinence (USI). MATERIAL AND METHODS: retrospective and consecutive study on 9 women with bladder perforation after midurethral slings (3 Monarc™ and 6 MiniArc®) placement for urinary stress incontinence. To remove the mesh, transurethral resection with an electrode loop (TUR-E) was used. The technique included: location and total removal of mesh with bipolar resectoscope up to healthy tissue. RESULTS: The median age was 61 years (49-70 years). The median time between midurethral sling placement and onset the sympltoms was 13 months (1-79 months). and between sling placement and mesh removal was 16 months (1-91 months). Five women (55.5%) developed bladder stones. Mean operating time was 29.4 ± 10.4 minutes and mean length of hospital stay was 2.6 ± 0.5 days. The median follow-up after mesh removal was 38 months (range, 14 to 109 months). No complications were found. CONCLUSIONS: The use of transurethral resection of intravesical mesh after suburethral slings is easy and the results obtained by our surgical team are excellent.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objetivo: El tratamiento de la incontinencia urinaria femenina ha sufrido una revolución en los últimos años por la aparición en el mercado de las cintillas suburetrales. El objetivo de este estudio es comparar 2 técnicas quirúrgicas para el tratamiento de la incontinencia urinaria de esfuerzo: Monarc™ (cintilla suburetral transobturadora) y MiniArc® (mini-cintilla suburetral de incisión única). Material y métodos: Estudio retrospectivo observacional comparativo desde enero de 2005 hasta diciembre de 2011 con 317 mujeres diagnosticadas de incontinencia urinaria de esfuerzo. Doscientas catorce fueron tratadas con la cintilla suburetral transobturadora Monarc™ y 103 con la mini-cintilla MiniArc®. Los resultados han sido tratados con el programa informático SPSS v 15 y el nivel de significación estadística ha sido p ≤ 0,005. Resultados: Los 2 grupos de pacientes son homogéneos en cuanto a la edad, el número de partos, la presencia de incontinencia urinaria de urgencia o histerectomía previa. Diferencias significativas en estancia hospitalaria, tiempo quirúrgico y complicaciones precoces a favor del Miniarc®, pero no en las tardías donde no hay diferencias significativas globales. El 84% de las pacientes tratadas con la cintilla transobturadora Monarc™ están curadas frente al 72% en las que colocamos un MiniArc® con diferencia significativa. Conclusión: Debemos realizar un mayor número de estudios de alta calidad de carácter prospectivo y aleatorizados, con mayor número de pacientes y tiempo de seguimiento para confirmar o rechazar la diferencia que hemos encontrado en la tasa de éxito a favor de cintilla suburetral transobturador Monarc™ (AU)

Objective: The treatment of female stress urinary incontinence has undergone a revolution in recent years due the emergence on the market of suburethral slings. The aim of this study is to compare two surgical techniques for treating stress urinary incontinence: Monarc™ (transobturator suburethral sling) and MiniArc® (single-incision suburethral mini-sling). Material and methods: Comparative, retrospective, observational study from January 2005 to December 2011 on 317 women diagnosed with stress urinary incontinence. Of these, 214 were treated with the Monarc™ transobturator suburethral sling, and 103 were treated with the MiniArc® mini-sling. The results were treated with SPSS v.15 software, and the statistical significance was P ≤ 0.005. Results: The two patients groups were homogeneous in terms of age, number of births, presence of urgency urinary incontinence and prior hysterectomy. There were significant differences in hospital stay, surgical time and early complications in favour of the MiniArc®, technique, but overall there were no significant differences in the late complications. Some 84% of the patients treated with the Monarc™ transobturator sling were cured compared with the 72% of patients in whom we implanted a MiniArc®, a difference that was statistically significant. Conclusion: We need to perform more high-quality, prospective and randomised studies with larger numbers of patients and longer follow-up times to confirm or disprove the difference that we found in the success rate for the Monarc™ transobturator suburethral sling (AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The treatment of female stress urinary incontinence has undergone a revolution in recent years due the emergence on the market of suburethral slings. The aim of this study is to compare two surgical techniques for treating stress urinary incontinence: Monarc™ (transobturator suburethral sling) and MiniArc(®) (single-incision suburethral mini-sling). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Comparative, retrospective, observational study from January 2005 to December 2011 on 317 women diagnosed with stress urinary incontinence. Of these, 214 were treated with the Monarc™ transobturator suburethral sling, and 103 were treated with the MiniArc(®) mini-sling. The results were treated with SPSS v.15 software, and the statistical significance was P≤.005. RESULTS: The two patients groups were homogeneous in terms of age, number of births, presence of urgency urinary incontinence and prior hysterectomy. There were significant differences in hospital stay, surgical time and early complications in favour of the MiniArc(®), technique, but overall there were no significant differences in the late complications. Some 84% of the patients treated with the Monarc™ transobturator sling were cured compared with the 72% of patients in whom we implanted a MiniArc(®), a difference that was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: We need to perform more high-quality, prospective and randomised studies with larger numbers of patients and longer follow-up times to confirm or disprove the difference that we found in the success rate for the Monarc™ transobturator suburethral sling.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

No disponible

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study is to compare two analgesic techniques for ultrasound transrectal biopsy. Oral analgesia vs periprosthetic nerve blockade with 2% mevicaine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 200 patients were randomized prospectively into 2 groups, namely group I: 100 patients treated with metamizol, oral morphine 30 minutes before the procedure, and group II: 100 patients anesthesied with periprosthetic nerve blockade with 2% mepivacaine. Both groups were treated with bromacepán 3 mg 30 minutes before the biopsy. The first intention was to obtain 10 core TRUS-guided biopsy in all patients underwent. After the procedure, a ten visual analogue pain score (VAS) from 0 = no discomfort to 10 = severe pain was administered to the biopsied patients and a global estimation of pain associated with the procedure was obtained. Test T de Student was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, PSA and prostate volume. 3 core TRUS-guided biopsy were obtain in group I (3 +/- 1.3), and 10 in group II (5 +/- 1.2) In the periprosthetic block group (II) 95% of patients referred no pain after the procedure (VAS = 0), 2% middle pain (VAS = 5-6) and 3% strong pain (VAS = 7-8); while patients in group I referred 12.5% no pain, 42.4% middle pain, 20% strong pain. The level of pain reported by this group of patients was significantly different from those reported by patients who performed prostate biopsy with periprosthetic nerve blockade. (p < or = 0.05). There were no significant differences in major complications. CONCLUSIONS: The use of bilateral periprosthetic block with mepivacaine is a very effective and useful technique, well tolerated by the patient, which almost completely abolishes the pain and discomfort associated with the prostate biopsy procedure. And also allows increase the number of cores.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We report a case of Ovarian Vein Syndrome, describe its clinical symptoms and discuss its diagnosis and management including laparoscopic surgery treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 36-year-old female with right kidney recurring pain was studied by means of abdominal RX, urography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography and finally diagnosed from Ovarian Vein Syndrome. The case was resolved with laparoscopic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian Vein Syndrome is an uncommon disorder. Differential diagnosis must be done with external processes that cause ureteral obstruction. Surgery is the first line treatment when clinical symptoms are present and, in our opinion,laparoscopic surgery is the best approach to treat this pathology.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introducción: La intención de este estudio es comparar la efectividad de dos técnicas analgésicas, una oral frente al bloqueo con anestesia local de los nervios periprostáticos, en la realización de la biopsia prostática ecodirigida. Material y métodos: Un Total de 200 pacientes se han randomizado en dos grupos. Grupo I: 100 pacientes tratados con metamizol y morfina oral 30 minutos antes de la realización de la biopsia. Grupo II: 100 pacientes a los que se los ha anestesiado con mepivacaína al 2% en las bandeletas. Previamente a ambos grupos de pacientes se les suministró bromacepán 3 mg 30 minutos antes de la prueba. Después de la biopsia a los pacientes se les pidió que graduaran su dolor mediante una escala analógica visual, graduada de 0 (no dolor) a 10 dolor insoportable. Los datos obtenidos se manejaron estadísticamente con el test T de Student. Resultados: Ambos grupos no presentaron diferencias significativas con respecto a la edad, PSA y volumen prostático. Se obtuvieron en el grupo I, 3 biopsias por lóbulo (3+/-1,3), y en el II grupo 5 (5+/-1,2). En éste grupo el 95% de los pacientes no experimentaron dolor alguno tras la biopsia (VAS = 0), el 2% un dolor moderado (VAS=5-6), y el 3% un dolor intenso (VAS=7-8). Los pacientes del grupo I refirieron ningún dolor en 12,5%, dolor moderado el 42, 4% , y dolor intenso el 20% . Encontrándose diferencia significativa entre ambos grupos (p<=0,05) con respecto al dolor, pero no con respecto a las complicaciones referidas. Conclusión: La biopsia de próstata ecodirigida es una prueba muy bien tolerada bajo anestesia local con mepivacaína, disminuyendo el dolor asociado a la biopsia, lo cual permite realizar en el mismo acto una mayor toma de cilindros

Purpose: The aim of the present study is to compare two analgesic techniques for ultrasound transrectal biopsy. Oral analgesia vs periprosthetic nerve blockade with 2 % mevicaine. Patients and methods: A total of 200 patients were randomized prospectively into 2 groups, namely group I: 100 patients treated with metamizol, oral morphine 30 minutes before the procedure, and group II: 100 patients anesthesied with periprosthetic nerve blockade with 2% mepivacaine. Both groups were treated with bromacepán 3 mg 30 minutes before the biopsy. The first intention was to obtain 10 core TRUS-guided biopsy in all patients underwent. After the procedure, a ten visual analogue pain score (VAS) from 0 = no discomfort to 10 = severe pain was administered to the biopsied patients and a global estimation of pain associated with the procedure was obtained. Test T de Student was used for statistical analysis. Results: There were no significant differences in age, PSA and prostate volume. 3 core TRUS-guided biopsy were obtain in group I (3+/-1,3), and 10 in group II (5+/-1,2) In the periprosthetic block group (II) 95% of patients referred no pain after the procedure (VAS = 0), 2% middle pain (VAS=5-6) and 3% strong pain (VAS=7-8); while patients in group I referred 12,5% no pain , 42,4% middle pain, 20% strong pain. The level of pain reported by this group of patients was significantly different from those reported by patients who performed prostate biopsy with periprosthetic nerve blockade. (p<=0.05). There were no significant differences in major complications. Conclusions: The use of bilateral periprosthetic block with mepivacaine is a very effective and useful technique, well tolerated by the patient, which almost completely abolishes the pain and discomfort associated with the prostate biopsy procedure. And also allows increase the number of cores

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objetivo: Presentamos un caso de síndrome de la vena ovárica, describimos su presentación clínica y discutimos su diagnóstico y tratamiento incluyendo la cirugía laparoscópica. Material y Métodos: Mujer de 36 años de edad con clínica de cólico renal derecho recurrente que tras ser estudiada mediante radiología de abdomen, urografías, TAC, RM y ecografía es diagnosticada finalmente de síndrome de la vena ovárica. El caso se resuelve con cirugía laparoscópica. Conclusiones: El síndrome de la vena ovárica es una entidad poco frecuente. El diagnóstico diferencial se debe hacer con procesos extrínsecos que producen obstrucción ureteral. El tratamiento es quirúrgico cuando produce síntomas y pensamos que actualmente debe hacerse por vía laparoscópica

Objective: We report a case of Ovarian Vein Syndrome, describe its clinical symptoms and discuss its diagnosis and management including laparoscopic surgery treatment. Materials and Methods: A 36-year-old female with right kidney recurring pain was studied by means of abdominal RX, urography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography and finally diagnosed from Ovarian Vein Syndrome. The case was resolved with laparoscopic surgery. Conclusions: Ovarian Vein Syndrome is an uncommon disorder. Differential diagnosis must be done with external processes that cause ureteral obstruction. Surgery is the first line treatment when clinical symptoms are present and, in our opinion, laparoscopic surgery is the best approach to treat this pathology

Asunto(s)