CARLO CAMARGO PASSEROTTI
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
LIM/55 - Laboratório de Urologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Líder
5 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 5 de 5
- Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: initial experience in Brazil and a review of the literature(2012) PASSEROTTI, Carlo Camargo; PESSOA, Rodrigo; CRUZ, Jose Arnaldo Shiomi da; OKANO, Marcelo Takeo; ANTUNES, Alberto Azoubel; NESRALLAH, Adriano Joao; DALL'OGLIO, Marcos Francisco; ANDRADE, Enrico; SROUGI, MiguelContext and Purpose: Partial nephrectomy has become the standard of care for renal tumors less than 4 cm in diameter. Controversy still exists, however, regarding the best surgical approach, especially when minimally invasive techniques are taken into account. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RALPN) has emerged as a promising technique that helps surgeons achieve the standards of open partial nephrectomy care while offering a minimally invasive approach. The objective of the present study was to describe our initial experience with robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and extensively review the pertinent literature. Materials and Methods: Between August 2009 and February 2010, eight consecutive selected patients with contrast enhancing renal masses observed by CT were submitted to RALPN in a private institution. In addition, we collected information on the patients' demographics, preoperative tumor characteristics and detailed operative, postoperative and pathological data. In addition, a PubMed search was performed to provide an extensive review of the robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy literature. Results: Seven patients had RALPN on the left or right sides with no intraoperative complications. One patient was electively converted to a robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy. The operative time ranged from 120 to 300 min, estimated blood loss (EBL) ranged from 75 to 400 mL and, in five cases, the warm ischemia time (WIT) ranged from 18 to 32 min. Two patients did not require any clamping. Overall, no transfusions were necessary, and there were no intraoperative complications or adverse postoperative clinical events. All margins were negative, and all patients were disease-free at the 6-month follow-up. Conclusions: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is a feasible and safe approach to small renal cortical masses. Further prospective studies are needed to compare open partial nephrectomy with its minimally invasive counterparts.
- Diameter of ureteral access sheath and ureteral stenosis development: a systematic review(2023) PISSAIA, Tamires Battistini; BELKOVSKY, Mikhael; PASSEROTTI, Carlo Camargo; ARTIFON, Everton Luiz de Almeida; OTOCH, Jose Pinhata; CRUZ, Jose Arnaldo Shiomi daPurpose: Ureteral access sheaths (UAS) are widely used in ureteroscopy. UAS are believed to pose a significant risk for ureteral stenosis due to ureteral mucosal compression, but little evidence supports this claim. Our systematic review aimed to investigate the relationship between different UAS diameters and stenosis risk. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane, from its inception to May 2023. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines were followed. chi 2 test was performed to compare the prevalence within the groups. Results: Six nonrandomized trials and one randomized, with a total of 962 patients, were included. The overall incidence of ureteral stenosis of 0.9%. UAS sizes were: 9.5/11.5Fr, 10/12Fr, 11/13Fr, 12/14Fr, and 14/16Fr. Within each subgroup, the incidence of ureteral stenosis was: 0.4, 8, 0, 1, and 1% (p = 0.099). No trend for stenosis was observed among larger UAS. Conclusion: In this systematic review, no relationship between UAS diameter and incidence of ureteral stenosis was observed. Nonetheless, additional randomized controlled trials are required to support this finding.
- Does displacement of lower pole stones during retrograde intrarenal surgery improves stone-free status? A systematic review and meta-analysis(2023) SANTANA, Roberto Nogueira; PORTO, Breno Cordeiro; PASSEROTTI, Carlo Camargo; ARTIFON, Everson Luiz de Almeida; OTOCH, Jose Pinhata; CRUZ, Jose Arnaldo Shiomi daPurpose: Kidney stones are one of the most common urological diseases worldwide. The size and location of the stone are the most important factors in determining the most suitable treatment options. The aim of this review was to evaluate the displacement of lower pole stones. Methods: Three studies assessing the efficacy of translocating kidney stones from the lower pole of the kidney to other locations during retrograde intrarenal surgery published in the last 20 years were included. A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and Web of Science databases using the following search terms: ""Lower pole,"" ""Lithotripsy."" Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.4. Results: Stone-free rates were improved through displacement (odds ratio - OR = -0.15; 95% confidence interval-95%CI -0.24--0.05; p = 0.002; I2 = 21%), but at the cost of increased surgical duration (mean difference = -12.50; 95%CI -24.06--0.95; p = 0.03; I2 = 94%). Although this represents a potentially negative outcome, the improvement in clearance rates justifies the additional investment of time and effort. Conclusion: Displacement of lower pole kidney stones for subsequent lithotripsy brings significant benefits in terms of stone-free rate, with no difference in laser energy usage. However, it results in increased surgical time. Despite these factors, the benefits to patients undergoing the procedure are substantial.
- Antibiotics prophylaxis at the time of catheter removal after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis(2024) SANTOS, Leticia Lourenco dos; FRAGA, Isabela de Almeida; ALMEIDA, Vitor Amaral de; SANTOS, Andressa Hellen Ribeiro; ALMEIDA, Isabelle Matos; NASCIMENTO, Tatiana Roberta; PORTO, Breno Cordeiro; PASSEROTTI, Carlo Camargo; ARTIFON, Everson Luiz de Almeida; OTOCH, Jose Pinhata; CRUZ, Jose Arnaldo Shiomi daPurpose: To conduct a systematic literature review with meta-analysis to identify whether antibiotic prophylaxis after removal of the indwelling urinary catheter reduces posterior infections. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in the databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, using the keywords ""antibiotics"" AND ""prostatectomy"" AND ""urinary catheter."" Results: Three articles were identified having the scope of our review, with 1,040 patients, which were subjected to our meta-analysis revealing a marginally significant decrease in the risk of urinary infection after indwelling urinary catheter removal (odds ratio-OR = 0.51; 95% confidence interval-95%CI 0.27-0.98; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%). No difference was found regarding the presence of bacteriuria (OR = 0.39; 95%CI 0.12-1.24; p = 0.11; I2 = 73%). Conclusions: In our meta-analysis, there was a significant decrease in urinary tract infection with antibiotic prophylaxis after indwelling urinary catheter removal following radical prostatectomy.
- PCNL vs. two staged RIRS for kidney stones greater than 20 mm: systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis(2024) CONSTANTINOU, Beatriz T.; BENEDICTO, Bianca C.; PORTO, Breno C.; BELKOVSKY, Mikhael; PASSEROTTI, Carlo C.; ARTIFON, Everson L.; OTOCH, Jose P.; CRUZ, Jose A. daINTRODUCTION: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is considered the gold standard treatment for kidney stones greater than 20 mm. However, retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) may achieve the same stone-free rate with repeated procedures, and potentially fewer complications. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PCNL and twostaged RIRS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science for studies comparing PCNL and RIRS for kidney stones greater than 20mm. The primary outcome is stone-free rate (SFR) of PCNL and RIRS (repeated once if needed). Secondary outcomes were SFR of PCNL versus RIRS (single procedure), operative time, hospital stay, need for auxiliary procedures, and complications. We performed a subgroup analysis for randomized trials, non-randomized trials, and patients with solitary kidney. We performed a trial sequential analysis for the main outcome. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included 31 articles, with 1987 patients in the PCNL and 1724 patients in RIRS. We confirmed the traditional result that after a single procedure PCNL has a higher SFR. We also found that comparing the SFR of PCNL and RIRS, repeated up to two times if needed, no difference in SFR was observed. Surprisingly, only 26% (CI95 23%-28%) of the patients required a second RIRS. In the trial sequential analysis, the last point of the z-curve was within futility borders. We observed that PCNL has a higher incidence of complications (RR=1.51; CI95 1.24, 1.83; P<0.0001; I2=28%), specifically CD2 (RR=1.82; CI95 1.30, 2.54; P=0.0004; I2=26%) and longer hospital stay (MD 2.57; 2.18, 2.96; P<0.00001; I2-98%). No difference was observed regarding operative time. CONCLUSIONS: RIRS repeated up to two times is equivalent to PCNL in terms of the SFR and may have the same safety.