Ureterolitotomía endoscópica láser en el manejo de cálculos ureterales grandes

dc.contributor.advisorPuentes Bernal, Andrés Felipespa
dc.contributor.advisorDonoso Donoso, Wilfredospa
dc.contributor.authorCapera López, César Andrésspa
dc.contributor.researchgroupGrupo de investigación e innovación en Urología - Universidad Nacional de Colombiaspa
dc.coverage.sucursalUniversidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Bogotáspa
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-28T16:54:07Zspa
dc.date.available2020-01-28T16:54:07Zspa
dc.date.issued2020-01-25spa
dc.date.issued2020-01-25spa
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Urolithiasis is a pathology with high prevalence worldwide, this leads to a high volume of surgical procedures. The management of choice for ureteral stones is semi-rigid or flexible ureteroscopy (URS / FURS) and Holmium laser lithotripsy in most cases. Objectives: To define the results, risks and complications of Holmium laser endoscopic ureterolithotomy for ureteral stones ≥1.5 cm. Materials and methods: Descriptive cross-sectional study in patients with ureteral stones ≥1.5 cm, led to endoscopic ureterolithotomy with Holmium laser in a medical center specialized in urolithiasis from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2017. Results: 1444 Holmium laser lithotripsies were performed in the analyzed period, 43 of these procedures in ureteral stones ≥ 1.5 cm. The stone-free rate was 67.4%, average surgery time 64.7 minutes, reoperation rate 9.3% and complications 9.3%. There was no statistically significant difference in complications and stone-free rate between 1.5-1.9 cm and ≥2 cm, however, the reintervention rate for stones ≥2cm was 23.5%, greater than those <2 cm 0% p 0.009. Conclusions: Urethral stones ≥1.5 cm are rare, the outcomes after surgical management with URS / FURS appear to be worse in stones ≥2cm.spa
dc.description.abstractIntroducción: La urolitiasis es una patología con alta prevalencia a nivel mundial, esto conlleva a un alto volumen de procedimientos quirúrgicos. El manejo de elección para cálculos ureterales es la ureteroscopia semirrígida o flexible (ULE/ULEF) y litotricia con láser Holmium en la mayoría de los casos. Objetivos: Definir los resultados, riesgos y complicaciones de la ureterolitotomía endoscópica con láser Holmium para cálculos ureterales ≥1.5 cm. Materiales y métodos: Estudio descriptivo de corte transversal en pacientes con cálculos ureterales ≥1.5 cm, llevados a ureterolitotomía endoscópica con láser Holmium en un centro médico especializado en urolitiasis desde el 01 de enero de 2009 al 31 de diciembre de 2017. Resultados: Se realizaron 1444 litotricias con láser Holmium en el periodo analizado, 43 de estos procedimientos en cálculos ureterales ≥ 1.5 cm. La tasa libre de cálculos fue del 67.4%, tiempo promedio de cirugía 64.7 minutos, tasa de reintervención del 9.3% y complicaciones 9.3%. No hubo diferencia estadísticamente significativa en complicaciones y tasa libre de cálculos entre 1.5-1.9 cm y ≥2 cm, sin embargo, la tasa de reintervención para cálculos ≥2cm fue del 23.5%, mayor que los <2 cm 0% p 0.009. Conclusiones: Los cálculos uretrales ≥1.5 cm son poco frecuentes, los desenlaces posteriores al manejo quirúrgico con ULE/ULEF parecen ser peores en cálculos ≥2cm.spa
dc.description.additionalEspecialista en Urología. Línea de Investigación: Endourologíaspa
dc.format.extent28spa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfspa
dc.identifier.citationCapera-López CA. (2020). Ureterolitotomía endoscópica láser en el manejo de los cálculos ureterales grandes. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia.spa
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/75531
dc.language.isospaspa
dc.publisher.branchUniversidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Bogotáspa
dc.relation.referencesStamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM, Curhan GC. Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976-1994. Kidney Int 2003;63:1817–23.spa
dc.relation.referencesRaheem OA, Khandwala YS, Sur RL, Ghani KR, Denstedt JD. Burden of Urolithiasis: Trends in Prevalence, Treatments, and Costs. Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Feb;3(1):18-26.spa
dc.relation.referencesAntonelli JA, Maalouf NM, Pearle MS, Lotan Y. Use of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to calculate the impact of obesity and diabetes on cost and prevalence of urolithiasis in 2030. Eur Urol 2014;66:724–9.spa
dc.relation.referencesLudwig WW, Matlaga BR. Urinary Stone Disease: Diagnosis, Medical Therapy, and Surgical Management. Med Clin North Am. 2018 Mar;102(2):265-277.spa
dc.relation.referencesBaş O, Tuygun C, Dede O, Sarı S, Çakıcı MÇ, Öztürk U, Göktuğ G, İmamoğlu A. Factors affecting complication rates of retrograde flexible ureterorenoscopy: analysis of 1571 procedures-a single-center experience. World J Urol. 2017 May;35(5):819-826.spa
dc.relation.referencesGeavlete P, Georgescu D, Niţă G, Mirciulescu V, Cauni V. Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol. 2006 Mar;20(3):179-85.spa
dc.relation.referencesOsther PJS. Risks of flexible ureterorenoscopy: pathophysiology and prevention. Urolithiasis. 2018 Feb;46(1):59-67.spa
dc.relation.referencesWu T, Duan X, Chen S, Yang X, Tang T, Cui S. Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy versus Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy or Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Urol Int. 2017;99(3):308-319.spa
dc.relation.referencesTugcu V, Resorlu B, Sahin S, Atar A, Kocakaya R, Eksi M, Tasci AI. Flexible Ureteroscopy versus Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones >15 mm: A Single Surgeon Experience. Urol Int. 2016;96(1):77-82.spa
dc.relation.referencesTorricelli FC, Monga M, Marchini GS, Srougi M, Nahas WC, Mazzucchi E. Semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large upper ureteral stones: a meta - analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int Braz J Urol. 2016 Jul-Aug;42(4):645-54.spa
dc.relation.referencesKhaladkar S, Modi J, Bhansali M, Dobhada S, Patankar S. Which is the best option to treat large (>1.5 cm) midureteric calculi? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009 Aug;19(4):501-4.spa
dc.relation.referencesFarooq Qadri SJ, Khan N, Khan M. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy--a single centre 10 year experience. Int J Surg. 2011;9(2):160-4.spa
dc.relation.referencesDindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13.spa
dc.relation.referencesKumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Jha SK, Singh H. A Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy and Semirigid Ureteroscopy for Upper Ureteral Stones >2 cm: A Single-Center Experience. J Endourol. 2015 Nov;29(11):1248-52.spa
dc.relation.referencesBasiri A, Simforoosh N, Ziaee A, Shayaninasab H, Moghaddam SM, Zare S. Retrograde, antegrade, and laparoscopic approaches for the management of large, proximal ureteral stones: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol. 2008 Dec;22(12):2677-80.spa
dc.relation.referencesShao Y, Wang DW, Lu GL, Shen ZJ. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in comparison with ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm. World J Urol. 2015 Nov;33(11):1841-5.spa
dc.rightsDerechos reservados - Universidad Nacional de Colombiaspa
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessspa
dc.rights.licenseAtribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacionalspa
dc.rights.spaAcceso abiertospa
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/spa
dc.subject.ddcMedicina y saludspa
dc.subject.proposalUrolithiasiseng
dc.subject.proposalUretereng
dc.subject.proposalUreteroscopiaspa
dc.subject.proposalLithotripsyeng
dc.subject.proposalLáserspa
dc.subject.proposalHolmiumeng
dc.titleUreterolitotomía endoscópica láser en el manejo de cálculos ureterales grandesspa
dc.title.alternativeLaser endoscopic ureterolithotomy in management of large ureteral stonesspa
dc.typeDocumento de trabajospa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_8042spa
dc.type.coarversionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_ab4af688f83e57aaspa
dc.type.contentTextspa
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/workingPaperspa
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/WPspa
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionspa
oaire.accessrightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2spa

Archivos

Bloque original

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Cargando...
Miniatura
Nombre:
Trabajo final.pdf
Tamaño:
309.07 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Bloque de licencias

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Cargando...
Miniatura
Nombre:
license.txt
Tamaño:
3.9 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descripción: