31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Publicación duplicada y autoplagio en publicaciones médicas Translated title: Duplicate publication and self-plagiarism

      editorial
      Revista chilena de cirugía
      Sociedad de Cirujanos de Chile

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: comparison of two surgical approaches- a single centre experience of three years.

          UPJO causes hydronephrosis and progressive renal impairment may ensue if left uncorrected. Open pyeloplasty remains the standard against which new technique must be compared. We analyzed the comparison of Laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in a randomized prospective trial. A prospective randomized study was done from January 2004 to January 2007 in which a total of 28 Laparoscopic and 34 open pyeloplasty were done. All laparoscopic pyeloplasties were performed transperitoneally. Standard open Anderson Hynes pyeloplasty, spiral flap or VY plasty was done depending on anatomic consideration. Patients were followed with DTPA scan at 3 months and IVP at 6 months. Perioperative parameters including operative time, analgesic use, hospital stay, and complication and success rates were compared. Mean total operative time with stent placement in LP group was 244.2 min (188-300 min) compared to 122 min (100-140 min) in open group. Compared to open pyeloplasty the post operative diclofenac requirement was significantly less in LP group (mean107.14 mg) and open group required mean of (682.35 mg) The duration of analgesic requirement was also significantly less in LP group. The post operative hospital stay in LP was mean 8.29 days (7-11) and was significantly less than open group (mean 3.14 Days (2-7 days). Open pyeloplasty has been the gold standard for UPJO repair and achieves success rates exceeding 90%. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty provides a minimally invasive alternative to repair UPJO and has developed world wide as the first minimally option to match success rate of open pyeloplasty. Its potential advantages including less post op pain, shorter hospital stay an improved cosmesis has been proved in some comparative series. The only disadvantage seems to be longer operative time. LP has a minimal level of morbidity and short hospital stay compared to open approach Although Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has the disadvantages of longer operative time and requires significant skill of intracorporeal knotting but it is here to stay and represents an emerging standard of care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: Comparison of two surgical approaches- a single centre experience of three years

            BACKGROUND: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) causes hydronephrosis and progressive renal impairment may ensue if left uncorrected. Open pyeloplasty remains the standard against which new technique must be compared. We compared laparoscopic (LP) and open pyeloplasty (OP) in a randomized prospective trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized study was done from January 2004 to January 2007 in which a total of 28 laparoscopic and 34 open pyeloplasty were done. All laparoscopic pyeloplasties were performed transperitoneally. Standard open Anderson Hynes pyeloplasty, spiral flap or VY plasty was done depending on anatomic consideration. Patients were followed with DTPA scan at three months and IVP at six months. Perioperative parameters including operative time, analgesic use, hospital stay, and complication and success rates were compared. RESULTS: Mean total operative time with stent placement in LP group was 244.2 min (188-300 min) compared to 122 min (100-140 min) in OP group. Compared to OP group, the post operative diclofenac requirement was significantly less in LP group (mean 107.14 mg) and OP group required mean of (682.35 mg). The duration of analgesic requirement was also significantly less in LP group. The postoperative hospital stay in LP was mean 3.14 Days (2-7 days) significantly less than the open group mean of 8.29 days (7-11 days). CONCLUSION: LP has a minimal level of morbidity and short hospital stay compared to open approach. Although, laparoscopic pyeloplasty has the disadvantages of longer operative time and requires significant skill of intracorporeal knotting but it is here to stay and represents an emerging standard of care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals

              (1993)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Journal
                rchcir
                Revista chilena de cirugía
                Rev Chil Cir
                Sociedad de Cirujanos de Chile (Santiago, , Chile )
                0718-4026
                February 2017
                : 69
                : 1
                : 1-2
                Affiliations
                [01] Santiago orgnameUniversidad de Chile orgdiv1Hospital Clínico San Borja Arriarán Chile
                Article
                S0718-40262017000100001
                10.1016/j.rchic.2016.11.009
                feef7e31-180b-4ae2-b4ea-1db7dd81d511

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 11, Pages: 2
                Product

                SciELO Chile


                Comments

                Comment on this article