Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.advisorNeira Melo, Iván Mauriciospa
dc.contributor.authorCelis Reyes, Estefanía
dc.contributor.authorZapata Sánchez, Margarita
dc.coverage.spatialMedicinaspa
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-01T22:43:29Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-30T19:08:57Z
dc.date.available2016-02-01T22:43:29Z
dc.date.available2019-12-30T19:08:57Z
dc.date.issued2015-11-05
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10654/7272
dc.description.abstractEvaluar el impacto de la utilización de la camisa de acceso ureteral en la tasa libre de cálculos durante la ureterorenoscopia flexible en pacientes tratados por cálculos del tracto urinario superior. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un estudio descriptivo donde se incluyó un componente analítico de correlación de variables. La población definida en el presente estudio incluye individuos con cálculos renales o ureterales proximales con indicación de nefrolitotomia flexible láser en un solo tiempo quirúrgico, la población corresponde a 60 pacientes los cuales se diferencian en dos grupos, en quienes se utilizó camisa de acceso ureteral durante el procedimiento (44 pacientes) y en quienes no se utilizó por falla en el acceso (16 pacientes). Resultados: Comparando las dos técnicas en cuanto a tiempo quirúrgico, tamaño de los cálculos, complicaciones y tasa libre de cálculos no se observan diferencias significativas; al realizar el análisis exploratorio multivariado, las dimensiones explican el 94% de la variabilidad del modelo y los individuos presentan correlación entre las categorías de no uso de camisa, no ocurrencia de complicaciones, tiempo quirúrgico menor a 90 minutos y cálculos con diámetros menores a 10 mm. Conclusiones: La nefrolitotomia flexible laser sin camisa de acceso ureteral es un procedimiento seguro en pacientes con litiasis menor de 10 mm, no hay variaciones representativas con respecto al uso de la camisa ureteral, por lo cual podría ser una alternativa quirúrgica para el tratamiento de la litiasis de tracto urinario superior en pacientes en quienes no sea posible el acceso con la camisa ureteral.spa
dc.description.sponsorshipNingunaspa
dc.formatpdfspa
dc.language.isospaspa
dc.publisherUniversidad Militar Nueva Granadaspa
dc.titleSeguridad de la ureteroscopia flexible sin camisa de acceso ureteral.spa
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesisspa
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessspa
dc.subject.lembENFERMEDADES DEL URETERspa
dc.subject.lembCALCULOS URETERALESspa
dc.subject.lembURETROSCOPIAspa
dc.subject.lembURETRA-EXAMENspa
dc.publisher.departmentFacultad de Medicinaspa
dc.type.localTrabajo de gradospa
dc.description.abstractenglishTo evaluate the impact of the use of ureteral access sheath, during flexible ureterorenoscopy on stone-free rate for patients treated for upper urinary tract stones. Materials and Methods: A descriptive study with an analytical variable correlation component was performed. The population as defined in this study includes individuals with kidney or proximal ureteral stones, with an indication of flexible laser nephrolithotomy to manage stones in one surgical time, the population corresponds to 60 patients which are divided into two groups, those in which ureteral access sheath was used for the procedure (44 patients) and those in which it was not used secondary to access failure (16 patients). Results: Comparing the two techniques in terms of operative time, stone size and stone-free rate, there were no significant differences observed; after performing exploratory multivariate analysis, dimensions explain 94% of the variability of the model and correlation was found between the categories: no use of ureteral access sheath with no occurrence of complications, operative time less than 90 minutes and stones with smaller diameters than 10 mm. Conclusions: Flexible laser nephrolithotomy without ureteral access sheath is safe in patients with stones smaller than 10mm, with no representative variations with respect to the use of ureteral sheath, this means it can be a surgical alternative for the treatment of upper urinary tract stones in patients in which ureteral access fails with an ureteral access sheath.eng
dc.title.translatedSecurity of the flexible ureteroscopy without ureteral access sheathspa
dc.subject.keywordsFlexible laser nephrolithotomyspa
dc.subject.keywordsureteral access sheathspa
dc.subject.keywordsstone-free ratespa
dc.publisher.programUrologíaspa
dc.creator.degreenameEspecialista en Urologíaspa
dc.relation.references1. Husain Alenezi, John D. Denstedt. Flexible ureteroscopy: Technological advancements, current indications and outcomes in the treatment of urolithiasis. Asian Journal of Urology (2015) June, 1-9.spa
dc.relation.references2. Manoj Monga, Sara Best. Durability of Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Randomized, Prospective Study. The Journal Of Urology. Vol. 176, 137-141, July 2006.spa
dc.relation.references3. O. Merigot De Treigny, MD, E. Bou Nasr. The cumulated stone diameter: a limited tool for stone burden estimation. Journal of Urology.2015.06.018.spa
dc.relation.references4. John Kourambas, Robert R. Byrne. Dose a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy? The Journal Of Urology. Vol. 165, 789–793, March 2001.spa
dc.relation.references5. Ozyuvali E., Oguz U., Damar E. Should ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery be placed routinely? Eur Urol Suppl 2013;12.spa
dc.relation.references6. Shubha De, Carl Sarkissian, Fabio C. M. Torricelli. New Ureteral Access Sheaths: A Double Standard. Urology 85: 757e763, 2015.spa
dc.relation.references7. C. Poullis, A. Simoes, S. Malde. Does the use of ureteric access sheaths decrease intrarenal pressures during flexible ureterorenoscopy? A prospective study. European urology supplements 12 (2013) 29–68.spa
dc.relation.references8. Olivier Traxer, Alexandre Thomas. Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. The Journal Of Urology. Vol. 189, 580-584, February 2013spa
dc.relation.references9. Jamil Rehman, Manoj Monga. Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology 61: 713–718, 2003.spa
dc.relation.references10. Manoj Monga, Joshua Bodie, Barbara Ercole. Is there a role for small-diameter ureteral access sheaths? Impact on irrigant flow and intrapelvic pressures. UROLOGY 64: 439–442, 2004.spa
dc.relation.references11. Manoj Monga, Sara Best. Durability of Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Randomized, Prospective Study. The Journal Of Urology Vol. 176, 137-141, July 2006.spa
dc.relation.references12. Razvan Multescu, Bogdan Geavlete. Improved Durability of Flex-Xc Digital Flexible ureteroscope: How Long Can You expect it to Last? Urology January, 2014.spa
dc.relation.referencesGaetan Berquet, Paul Prunel. The use of a ureteral access sheath does not improve stone-free rate after ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract stones. World J Urol (2014) 32:229–232spa
dc.relation.references14. Scott G. Hubosky, Kelly A. Healy. Accessing the Difficult Ureter and the Importance of Ureteroscope Miniaturization: History Is Repeating Itself. Urology 84 (4), 2014.spa
dc.relation.references15. Fuller T, Ferroni M, Mitchell C, Wollin D, Shah O, Miller N, et al. Defining failure rate of primary ureteroscopy. A multi-institutional study. AUA Annual meeting 2014. Pittsburgh, PA. Abstract: MP18-08.spa
dc.relation.references16. Hsin-Hsiao Wang, Lin Huang. Use of the Ureteral Access Sheath During Ureteroscopy in Children. The Journal Of Urology. Vol. 186, 1728-1733, October 2011.spa
dc.subject.proposalNefrolitotomía flexible laserspa
dc.subject.proposalCamisa de acceso ureteralspa
dc.subject.proposalTasa libre de cálculosspa


Archivos en el ítem

Thumbnail

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem