Deniz ABAT, Fatih GOKALP, Ali ÇAM, Onur KARSLI

Renal pelvisteki idrarın üreter taşının impaktasyonunu belirlemedeki rolü

Renal pelvisteki idrarın üreter taşının impaktasyonunu belirlemedeki rolü Özet Amaç: Üreter taşının olduğu taraftaki renal pelvisin Hounsfield Ünitesi değerinin taşın impaktasyonu hakkında fikir verip veremeyeceğini değerlendirmek. Materyal ve method: Üreter taşı nedeniyle opere edilen hastaların, demografik verileri ile operasyon öncesi çekilen kontrastsız tomografi filmine göre hesaplanan, taşın transvers ve en uzun boyutu, üst üreterin çapı, üst üreterin alt üreter çapına oranı, taş dansitesi, renal pelvisin ön arka çapı ile renal pelvisteki idrarın ve mesanedeki idrarın HU değeri, taşın impakte olduğu ve olmadığı iki grup arasında karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Hastaların ortanca yaşı 44 (37 - 53) yıl olup, %86.4’ü erkekti. Yaş, cinsiyet, komorbidite, taraf ve taş lokalizasyonu bakımından gruplar arasında fark yoktu (p=0.067, p=0.073, p=0.093, p=0.0141 ve p=0.074, sırasıyla). Renal pelvisteki idrarın HU değeri ile mesanedeki idrarın HU değeri gruplar arasında karşılaştırıldığında anlamlı farklılık görülmedi (p=0.511, p=0.376, sırasıyla). Mesanedeki idrar dansitesinin renal pelvis dansitesine oranına bakıldığında gruplar arasında anlamlı fark yoktu (p=0.461). Transvers taş uzunluğu, en uzun taş boyutu, üst üreter çapı ve üst üreter çapının alt üreter çapına oranı, taş dansitesi ve renal pelvis AP çapı, taş impaktasyonu olan grupta istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olacak şekilde daha büyüktü (p

Anahtar Kelimeler:

İmpaktasyon, Oran, Üreter taşı

Information and Support Needs of First-Degree Female Relatives of Breast Cancer Patients

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess information and support needs (ISNs) of first-degree relatives (FDRs) of women with breast cancer. Methods: This descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted in a university hospital’s general surgery ward between January and June 2017. The population of the sample consisted of FDRs of women diagnosed with breast cancer and admitted to the hospital ward. The sample consisted of 110 female relatives of the patients, who met the inclusion criteria and agreed to participate in the study. The data was collected with face-to-face interviews using a Personal Information Form and the Information and Support Needs Questionnaire (ISNQ). The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: The mean scores of the importance of information needs (3.68 ± 0.36) were higher than the mean scores of the importance of support needs (3.24 ± 0.58). In addition, the mean scores of meeting the information needs (2.28 ± 0.35) were higher than the mean scores of meeting the support needs (1.93 ± 0.34). Conclusion/Implications for Practice: The findings of the study suggest that the information needs were regarded as more important than the support needs, and the information needs were met more often than the support needs. Nurses should record the family histories of FDRs of breast cancer patients, assess these histories in light of the danger for breast cancer, and meet the information needs of the relatives.

Keywords:

Breast cancer, high-risk women first-degree relatives, information and support needs, nursing,

PDF

___

Referanslar Referans 1. Sarica K, Eryildirim B, Akdere H, Camur E, Sabuncu K, Elibol O. Could ureteral wall thickness have an impact on the operative and post-operative parameters in ureteroscopic management of proximal ureteral stones? Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2019 Nov;43(9):474-479. English, Spanish. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2018.10.003. Epub 2019 May 31. PMID: 31155374.
Referans 2. Seitz C, Tanovic E, Kikic Z, Fajkovic H. Impact of stone size, location, composition, impaction, and hydronephrosis on the efficacy of holmium:YAG-laser ureterolithotripsy. Eur Urol. 2007 Dec;52(6):1751-7. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.04.029. Epub 2007 Apr 18. PMID: 17459573.
Referans3.El-Nahas AR, El-Tabey NA, Eraky I, Shoma AM, El-Hefnawy AS, El-Assmy AM, Soliman S, Youssef RF, El-Kenawy MR, Shokeir AA, El-Kappany HA. Semirigid ureteroscopy for ureteral stones: a multivariate analysis of unfavorable results. J Urol. 2009 Mar;181(3):1158-62. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.167. Epub 2009 Jan 18. PMID: 19152940.
Referans4. Georgescu D, Mulţescu R, Geavlete B, Geavlete P. Intraoperative complications after 8150 semirigid ureteroscopies for ureteral lithiasis: risk analysis and management. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2014 May-Jun;109(3):369-74. PMID: 24956343.
Referans5. Sarica K, Eryildirim B, Sahin C, Sabuncu K, Cetinel C, Narter F. Impaction of ureteral stones into the ureteral wall: Is it possible to predict? Urolithiasis. 2016 Aug;44(4):371-6. doi: 10.1007/s00240-015-0850-9. Epub 2015 Dec 11. PMID: 26662172.
Referans6. Yoshida T, Inoue T, Omura N, Okada S, Hamamoto S, Kinoshita H, Matsuda T. Ureteral Wall Thickness as a Preoperative Indicator of Impacted Stones in Patients With Ureteral Stones Undergoing Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy. Urology. 2017 Aug;106:45-49. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.04.047. Epub 2017 May 9. PMID: 28499762.
Referans7. Legemate JD, Wijnstok NJ, Matsuda T, Strijbos W, Erdogru T, Roth B, Kinoshita H, Palacios-Ramos J, Scarpa RM, de la Rosette JJ. Characteristics and outcomes of ureteroscopic treatment in 2650 patients with impacted ureteral stones. World J Urol. 2017 Oct;35(10):1497-1506. doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2028-2. Epub 2017 Mar 20. PMID: 28321499; PMCID: PMC5613106.
Referans8. Elibol O, Safak KY, Buz A, Eryildirim B, Erdem K, Sarica K. Radiological noninvasive assessment of ureteral stone impaction into the ureteric wall: A critical evaluation with objective radiological parameters. Investig Clin Urol. 2017 Sep;58(5):339-345. doi: 10.4111/icu.2017.58.5.339. Epub 2017 Jul 31. PMID: 28868505; PMCID: PMC5577330.
Referans9. Alelign T, Petros B. Kidney Stone Disease: An Update on Current Concepts. Adv Urol. 2018 Feb 4;2018:3068365. doi: 10.1155/2018/3068365. PMID: 29515627; PMCID: PMC5817324.
Referans10. Mugiya S, Ito T, Maruyama S, Hadano S, Nagae H. Endoscopic features of impacted ureteral stones. J Urol. 2004;171:89–91
Referans11. Morgentaler A, Bridge SS, Dretler SP. Management of the impacted ureteral calculus. J Urol. 1990;143:263–6
Referans12.Deliveliotis C, Chrisofos M, Albanis S, Serafetinides E, Varkarakis J, Protogerou V. Management and follow-up of impacted ureteral stones. Urol Int. 2003;70(4):269-72. doi: 10.1159/000070133. PMID: 12740489.
Referans13.Abat D, Börekoglu A, Altunkol A, Köse IÇ, Boga MS. Is there any predictive value of the ratio of the upper to the lower diameter of the ureter for ureteral stone impaction?. Curr Urol. 2021;00:000–000. doi: 10.1097/CU9.0000000000000019
Referans14. Hwang E, Kim YH, Yuk SM, Sul CK, Lim JS. Factors that predict spontaneous passage of a small distal ureteral stone <5 mm. J Endourol. 2010 Oct;24(10):1681-5. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0092. PMID: 20677988.
Referans15. Pan J, Xue W, Xia L, Zhong H, Zhu Y, Du Z, Chen Q, Huang Y. Ureteroscopic lithotripsy in Trendelenburg position for proximal ureteral calculi: a prospective, randomized, comparative study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2014 Oct;46(10):1895-901. doi: 10.1007/s11255-014-0732-z. Epub 2014 May 14. PMID: 24824146.