Biomedical subjects

Samuel Aguiar

Publications and source records attributed to Samuel Aguiar.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Double-barreled wet colostomy is a safe option for simultaneous urinary and fecal diversion. Analysis of 56 procedures from a single institution.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Wide pelvic tumors need urinary and fecal diversion. We set out to assess the efficacy of the double-barreled wet colostomy (DBWC) in patients undergoing simultaneous double diversion. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed 56 consecutive patients submitted to surgery, divided into two groups: (1) total pelvic exenteration plus DBWC (n = 26); (2) DBWC without simultaneous pelvic resection (n = 30). Pelvic tumor recurrences accounted for most patients (n = 53), whereas the remaining three patients suffered from actinic pelvic complications. RESULTS: Surgical morbidity and mortality rates were 53.8% (14/26) and 11.5% (3/26) in Group 1, and 43.5% (13/30) and 3.3% (1/30) in Group 2, respectively. Only 2 patients out of 51 (3.9%) developed late postoperative urinary tract infection. Regression of the hydronephrosis was observed in 28 out of 33 assessable patients. Median survival in Groups 1 and 2 was 8.36 and 4.14 months, respectively. In the subgroup of patients submitted to curative surgery (n = 24), actuarial cancer-specific survival rate in 2 years was 58.78%. CONCLUSION: DBWC is a safe and efficient alternative for simultaneous urinary and fecal diversion, with low morbidity and mortality rates, improvement of renal insufficiency, and low risk of postoperative urinary tract infection.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Pelvic exenteration and sphincter preservation: an analysis of 96 cases.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is characterized by its technical complexity and morbidity rate. Appropriate patient selection prior to the operation allows for more conservative surgeries, preserving sphincters, and continent reconstruction of the intestinal and urinary tract, contributing to better results. METHODS: Between 1980 and 2000, 96 PE were performed. Factors related to sphincter preservation as well as factors associated to prognosis were respectively analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 96 PE, at least one sphincter in 36 patients was preserved (37.5%). In the 1990s, the sphincter preservation rate was significantly higher than in the 1980s (47.6 vs. 18.2%) (P = 0.005). More serious complications happened in 19.8% of the patients and the post-operative mortality rate was 15.6%. The post-operative complication rate was not influenced by sphincter preservation (P = 0.276). In nine patients, the resection margins were compromised microscopically (R1) and in five patients, there were macroscopically compromised (R2). The resection margins were not influenced by the type of surgery (P = 0.104), nor by the preservation of sphincters (P = 0.881). Twenty-three patients experienced relapses, 13 being local, eight distant, and two local and distant. Disease free survival at 5 years was 40.5%, and the primary site of the tumor was a factor associated to differences in disease free survival (P = 0.027). Overall 5-year survival was 41.9% and was significantly associated to the number of organs compromised (P = 0.040) and sphincter preservation (P = 0.026). Patients who were submitted to R0 type resection had a median survival of 40.9 months, while R1 and R2 type resections had a median 21.2 month survival. CONCLUSIONS: The appropriate pre-operative selection of the patient and rigorous oncological criteria permit PE to be performed while preserving the sphincters in selected cases, without harming survival rates.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

When to remove a chest tube? A randomized study with subsequent prospective consecutive validation.

BACKGROUND: Operative procedures on the pleural space are usually managed by chest tube drainage. Timing for removing the tube is empirically established, with wide variation among surgeons. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of establishing a volume of 200 mL/d of uninfected drainage as a threshold for removal of chest tube, as compared with more frequently used volumes of 100 and 150 mL/d. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective randomized study was performed in a single institution. Patients (n = 139) submitting to pleural drainage after surgical procedures were randomized to one of three groups, defined by the planned timing of chest tube removal (depending on the threshold volume per day of pleural fluid drained): G-100 (< or = 100 mL/d, n = 44); G-150 (< or =150 mL/d, n = 58); and G-200 (< or = 200 mL/d, n = 37). Subsequently, another 91 consecutive patients had chest tubes removed when drainage was less than 200 mL/d (G-val, prospective validation group). All patients had similar discharge and 60-day followup. Drainage time, hospital stay, and reaccumulation rate were registered. RESULTS: Drainage time (median days: 3.5 for G-100, 3 for G-150, 3 for G-200, 3 for G-val) and hospital stay (median days: 4 for G-100, 3 for G-150, 3 for G-200, 3 for G-val) were not statistically different among groups. Radiologic reaccumulation rates were 9.1% for G-100, 13.1% for G-150, 5.4% for G-200, and 10.9% for G-val, and the thoracenteses rates were 2.3%, 0.8%, 2.7%, and 3.3%, respectively, with no major differences among groups (G-100 versus G-150 versus G-200; G-200 versus G-val). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the threshold of daily drainage to 200 mL before removing the chest tube did not markedly affect drainage, hospitalization time, or overall costs, nor did it increase the likelihood of major pleural fluid reaccumulation. This volume (200 mL/d) could be recommended for chest tube withdrawal decision for uninfected pleural fluid with no evidence of air leaks.

Chest Tubes↗