PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

A Robles Samaniego

Publications and source records attributed to A Robles Samaniego.

2 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

[TRUS-guided biopsy: comparison of two anesthetic methods].

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study is to compare two analgesic techniques for ultrasound transrectal biopsy. Oral analgesia vs periprosthetic nerve blockade with 2% mevicaine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 200 patients were randomized prospectively into 2 groups, namely group I: 100 patients treated with metamizol, oral morphine 30 minutes before the procedure, and group II: 100 patients anesthesied with periprosthetic nerve blockade with 2% mepivacaine. Both groups were treated with bromacepán 3 mg 30 minutes before the biopsy. The first intention was to obtain 10 core TRUS-guided biopsy in all patients underwent. After the procedure, a ten visual analogue pain score (VAS) from 0 = no discomfort to 10 = severe pain was administered to the biopsied patients and a global estimation of pain associated with the procedure was obtained. Test T de Student was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, PSA and prostate volume. 3 core TRUS-guided biopsy were obtain in group I (3 +/- 1.3), and 10 in group II (5 +/- 1.2) In the periprosthetic block group (II) 95% of patients referred no pain after the procedure (VAS = 0), 2% middle pain (VAS = 5-6) and 3% strong pain (VAS = 7-8); while patients in group I referred 12.5% no pain, 42.4% middle pain, 20% strong pain. The level of pain reported by this group of patients was significantly different from those reported by patients who performed prostate biopsy with periprosthetic nerve blockade. (p < or = 0.05). There were no significant differences in major complications. CONCLUSIONS: The use of bilateral periprosthetic block with mepivacaine is a very effective and useful technique, well tolerated by the patient, which almost completely abolishes the pain and discomfort associated with the prostate biopsy procedure. And also allows increase the number of cores.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

[Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Preliminary experience].

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic technique has been developed with the aim to decrease the morbidity of the open radical prostatectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From january 2002 to may 2002, 8 patients were treated for prostate cancer with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Unilateral linfadenectomy has been carried out in only one patient. We usually employ the transperitoneal technique published by the Montsouris Institute, with some modifications. RESULTS: The main surgical time was 356 minutes (540-240). Transfusion wasn't needed in any case. Intraoperative complications were: 2 bladder injuries, 1 bleeding of the epigastric artery. Postoperative complications were: 1 ileus, 2 compressive neurapraxia, 4 anastomotic fistutas. All complications were treated conservatively. No patient were converted to open surgery. Surgical limits were negatifs in all cases, and the PSA rate was less than 0.1 ng/ml in the first month follow up. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a difficult technique, but we think that, the learning curve is getting lower and lower than in the first series. Oncologic results with this technique is similar to the open one. However, laparoscopic approach shows us some benefits such as less bleeding, less time catheterisation, less hospital stay, better continence, better sexual function, better stetic result, less postoperative pain, and finally an earlier back to work.

Aged↗