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











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Neurourol Urodyn ; 36(8): 2083-2088, 2017 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28244234

RESUMEN

AIMS: To determine the effect of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair on post-operative detrusor overactivity (DO) in women who have underwent incontinence surgery, using multivariate analysis. METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out on a cohort of 105 women who underwent incontinence surgery. In 39 of the patients this surgery was associated with pelvic organ prolapse repair. Clinical and urodynamic data were collected pre- and 3 months post-operatively. A multivariate statistical analysis was performed to detect confounding factors which could influence on the risk factors associated with post-operative detrusor overactivity. RESULTS: On univariate analysis, the following pre-operative factors were associated with post-operative detrusor overactivity: symptomatic mixed urinary incontinence, rectocele, detrusor overactivity, voided volume on free uroflowmetry, maximum cystomanometric capacity, and performing concomitant pelvic organ prolapse repair. Multivariate analysis, by means of confounding factors elimination, revealed that only pre-operative rectocele and detrusor overactivity were independent risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: The pelvic organ prolapse repair acts as a confounding factor. Women with a pre-operative rectocele and detrusor overactivity are on a greater risk to develop post-operative detrusor overactivity and, therefore, they should be informed.


Asunto(s)
Prolapso de Órgano Pélvico/cirugía , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Vejiga Urinaria Hiperactiva/epidemiología , Incontinencia Urinaria/cirugía , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Análisis Multivariante , Prolapso de Órgano Pélvico/complicaciones , Prolapso de Órgano Pélvico/fisiopatología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Incontinencia Urinaria/epidemiología , Incontinencia Urinaria/fisiopatología , Incontinencia Urinaria de Esfuerzo/complicaciones , Incontinencia Urinaria de Esfuerzo/epidemiología , Incontinencia Urinaria de Esfuerzo/fisiopatología , Incontinencia Urinaria de Esfuerzo/cirugía , Incontinencia Urinaria de Urgencia/complicaciones , Incontinencia Urinaria de Urgencia/epidemiología , Incontinencia Urinaria de Urgencia/fisiopatología , Incontinencia Urinaria de Urgencia/cirugía , Urodinámica , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Urológicos
2.
J Endourol ; 30(7): 778-82, 2016 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26976065

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To compare three laparoscopic surgical techniques for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO), assessing their difficulty, operating time, effectiveness, and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The clinical histories of 54 patients with UPJO who underwent a laparoscopic procedure between June 2003 and September 2013 were reviewed. Anderson-Hynes (A-H) pyeloplasty was performed on 34 patients, nondismembered pyeloplasty on 11 cases (8 Y-V Foley plasty and 3 Fenger plasty), and cephalad vascular displacement or Hellström technique (HT) on 9 patients. The patients were selected for the different techniques depending on the findings during the procedures, according to renal pelvic size and the presence of crossing vessels. We compared the techniques according to intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Complications were interpreted following the Clavien-Dindo classification. The success rate was defined as the absence of clinical symptoms and normal diuretic renography. Analysis of variance and chi-square tests were used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 55.58 months. The success rate achieved was 88.5% for A-H pyeloplasty, 90.9% for nondismembered pyeloplasty, and 100% for HT (p > 0.05). HT was the least time-consuming: 124 ± 30 vs 202 ± 44 minutes of A-H pyeloplasty and 147 ± 27 minutes of nondismembered plasty (p < 0.005). Mean hospital stay was 6.7 ± 1.4 days for A-H pyeloplasty, 6.6 ± 2 days for nondismembered pyeloplasty, and 3.42 ± 1.5 days for HT (p < 0.05). The postoperative complication rate was 21.1% for A-H pyeloplasty, 18.8% for nondismembered pyeloplasty, and 12.5% for HT (p > 0.05). None of the cases required open surgery, and urinary fistula was the most frequent complication. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative observation of ureteropelvic junction allows selecting cases to undergo nondismembered pyeloplasty techniques, achieving similar results to A-H pyeloplasty, reducing operating time, complication rate, and hospital stay.


Asunto(s)
Pelvis Renal/cirugía , Uréter/cirugía , Obstrucción Ureteral/cirugía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Urológicos/métodos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tempo Operativo , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Renografía por Radioisótopo , Procedimientos de Cirugía Plástica/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Fístula Urinaria/epidemiología , Adulto Joven
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA