Show simple item record

Authordc.contributor.authorSepúlveda Valenzuela, Francisco 
Authordc.contributor.authorAliaga, Alfredo 
Authordc.contributor.authorFleck, Daniela 
Authordc.contributor.authorFernández, Mario 
Authordc.contributor.authorMercado, Alejandro 
Authordc.contributor.authorVilches, Roberto 
Authordc.contributor.authorMoya, Francisco 
Authordc.contributor.authorLedezma, Rodrigo 
Authordc.contributor.authorReyes, Diego 
Authordc.contributor.authorMarchant, Fernando 
Admission datedc.date.accessioned2016-12-05T17:49:18Z
Available datedc.date.available2016-12-05T17:49:18Z
Publication datedc.date.issued2016
Cita de ítemdc.identifier.citationUrology Annals Volumen: 8 Número: 2 Páginas: 208-212 (2016)es_ES
Identifierdc.identifier.issn0974-7834
Identifierdc.identifier.other10.4103/0974-7796.163796
Identifierdc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/141647
Abstractdc.description.abstractIntroduction: The role of hemostatic agents as an adjunct for closure of the nephrostomy tract in tubeless percutaneous surgery (tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy [tPNL]) has been previously evaluated, observing a potential benefit in terms of reduced bleeding and urinary leakage. We assessed the rate of postoperative complications after the use of hemostatic agents for sealing the nephrostomy tract in patients undergoing tPNL at our institution. Subjects and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 52 consecutive patients undergoing tPNL at our center between January 2010 and December 2013. No substance was placed within the tract in 25 patients (Group 1). A cylinder of Surgicel((R)) in addition to 1 unit of Gelita((R)) were placed within the access tract in 27 patients (Group 2). We accounted for demographic variables, stone size, operative time, postoperative pain, development of hematoma, postoperative hematocrit drop, urinary leakage, residual lithiasis, and hospital stay length. Results: Age and sex differed significantly between the two groups (P = 0.0002 and P = 0.048 respectively). However, there were no significant differences in terms of body mass index and stone burden. No significant differences between groups were found with regards to operative time, postoperative hematocrit drop, postoperative pain and presence of residual lithiasis. Conclusion: The use of Gelita((R)) and Surgicel((R)) as hemostatic agents in tPNL is safe, but we were not able to demonstrate any significant benefit in terms of postoperative morbidity after comparing the use of these agents in tPNL. We concluded that the uses of hemostatic agents needed to be evaluated in prospective randomized trials to define its benefits.es_ES
Lenguagedc.language.isoenes_ES
Publisherdc.publisherWolters Kluwer - Medknowes_ES
Type of licensedc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile*
Link to Licensedc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/cl/*
Sourcedc.sourceUrology Annalses_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectHemostaticses_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectintraoperative complicationses_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectnephrolithotomyes_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectpercutaneous nephrostomyes_ES
Keywordsdc.subjecttubeless nephrolithotomyes_ES
Títulodc.titleHemostatic agents for access tract in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Is it worthes_ES
Document typedc.typeArtículo de revista
Catalogueruchile.catalogadorcctes_ES
Indexationuchile.indexArtículo de publicación ISIes_ES


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile