Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
You searched for:"Renato Moretti Marques"
We found (2) results for your search.Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2018;40(7):397-402
To analyze the perioperative results and safety of performing gynecological surgeries using robot-assisted laparoscopy during implementation of the technique in a community hospital over a 6-year period.
This was a retrospective observational study in which the medical records of 274 patients who underwent robotic surgery from September 2008 to December 2014 were analyzed. We evaluated age, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, procedures performed, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, the presence of a proctor (experienced surgeon with at least 20 robotic cases), operative time, transfusion rate, perioperative complications, conversion rate, length of stay, referral to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality. We compared transfusion rate, perioperative complications and conversion rate between procedures performed by experienced and beginner robotic surgeons assisted by an experienced proctor.
During the observed period, 3 experienced robotic surgeons performed 187 surgeries,while 87 surgeries were performedby 20 less experienced teams, always with the assistance of a proctor. The median patient age was 38 years, and the median BMI was 23.3 kg/m2. The most frequent diagnosis was endometriosis (57%) and the great majority of the patients were classified as ASA I or ASA II (99.6%). The median operative time was 225 minutes, and the median length of stay was 2 days. We observed a 5.8% transfusion rate, 0.8% rate of perioperative complications, 1.1% conversion rate to laparoscopy or laparotomy, no patients referred to ICU, and no deaths. There were no differences in transfusion, complications and conversion rates between experienced robotic surgeons and beginner robotic surgeons assisted by an experienced proctor.
In our casuistic, robot-assisted laparoscopy demonstrated to be a safe technique for gynecological surgeries, and the presence of an experienced proctor was considered a highlight in the safety model adopted for the introduction of the robotic gynecological surgery in a high-volume hospital and, mainly, for its extension among several surgical teams, assuring patient safety.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2018;40(7):397-402
To analyze the perioperative results and safety of performing gynecological surgeries using robot-assisted laparoscopy during implementation of the technique in a community hospital over a 6-year period.
This was a retrospective observational study in which the medical records of 274 patients who underwent robotic surgery from September 2008 to December 2014 were analyzed. We evaluated age, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, procedures performed, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, the presence of a proctor (experienced surgeon with at least 20 robotic cases), operative time, transfusion rate, perioperative complications, conversion rate, length of stay, referral to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality. We compared transfusion rate, perioperative complications and conversion rate between procedures performed by experienced and beginner robotic surgeons assisted by an experienced proctor.
During the observed period, 3 experienced robotic surgeons performed 187 surgeries,while 87 surgeries were performedby 20 less experienced teams, always with the assistance of a proctor. The median patient age was 38 years, and the median BMI was 23.3 kg/m2. The most frequent diagnosis was endometriosis (57%) and the great majority of the patients were classified as ASA I or ASA II (99.6%). The median operative time was 225 minutes, and the median length of stay was 2 days. We observed a 5.8% transfusion rate, 0.8% rate of perioperative complications, 1.1% conversion rate to laparoscopy or laparotomy, no patients referred to ICU, and no deaths. There were no differences in transfusion, complications and conversion rates between experienced robotic surgeons and beginner robotic surgeons assisted by an experienced proctor.
In our casuistic, robot-assisted laparoscopy demonstrated to be a safe technique for gynecological surgeries, and the presence of an experienced proctor was considered a highlight in the safety model adopted for the introduction of the robotic gynecological surgery in a high-volume hospital and, mainly, for its extension among several surgical teams, assuring patient safety.
, , , , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2020;42(10):642-648
, , , , , To evaluate the agreement between the histopathological diagnoses of preoperative endometrial samples and surgical specimens and correlate the agreement between the diagnoses with the impact on surgical management and the survival of patients with endometrial adenocarcinomas.
Sixty-two patients treated for endometrial cancer at a university hospital from 2002 to 2011 were retrospectively evaluated. The histopathological findings of preoperative endometrial samples and of surgical specimens were analyzed. The patients were subjected to hysterectomy as well as adjuvant treatment, if necessary, and clinical follow-up, according to the institutional protocol. Lesions were classified as endometrioid tumor (type 1) grades 1, 2, or 3 or non-endometrioid carcinoma (type 2).
The agreement between the histopathological diagnoses based on preoperative endometrial samples and surgical specimens was fair (Kappa: 0.40; p < 0.001). However, the agreement was very significant for tumor type and grade, in which a higher concordance occurred at a higher grade. The percentage of patients with lymph nodes affected was 19.2%;. Although most patients presenting with disease remission or cure were in the early stages (90.5%;), there were no significant differences between those patients who had a misdiagnosis (11/16; 68.8%;) and those who had a correct diagnosis (25/33; 75.8%;) based on preoperative endometrial sampling (p = 0.605).
Our findings corroborate the literature and confirm the under staging of preoperative endometrial samples based on histopathological assessment, especially for lower grade endometrial tumors. We suggest that the preoperative diagnosis should be complemented with other methods to better plan the surgical management strategy.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2020;42(10):642-648
, , , , , To evaluate the agreement between the histopathological diagnoses of preoperative endometrial samples and surgical specimens and correlate the agreement between the diagnoses with the impact on surgical management and the survival of patients with endometrial adenocarcinomas.
Sixty-two patients treated for endometrial cancer at a university hospital from 2002 to 2011 were retrospectively evaluated. The histopathological findings of preoperative endometrial samples and of surgical specimens were analyzed. The patients were subjected to hysterectomy as well as adjuvant treatment, if necessary, and clinical follow-up, according to the institutional protocol. Lesions were classified as endometrioid tumor (type 1) grades 1, 2, or 3 or non-endometrioid carcinoma (type 2).
The agreement between the histopathological diagnoses based on preoperative endometrial samples and surgical specimens was fair (Kappa: 0.40; p < 0.001). However, the agreement was very significant for tumor type and grade, in which a higher concordance occurred at a higher grade. The percentage of patients with lymph nodes affected was 19.2%;. Although most patients presenting with disease remission or cure were in the early stages (90.5%;), there were no significant differences between those patients who had a misdiagnosis (11/16; 68.8%;) and those who had a correct diagnosis (25/33; 75.8%;) based on preoperative endometrial sampling (p = 0.605).
Our findings corroborate the literature and confirm the under staging of preoperative endometrial samples based on histopathological assessment, especially for lower grade endometrial tumors. We suggest that the preoperative diagnosis should be complemented with other methods to better plan the surgical management strategy.
