Safety and effectiveness of magnetic ureteric stent removal under ultrasound control: a randomized single center trial

被引:3
|
作者
Li, Jingqiu [1 ]
Gauhar, Vineet [2 ]
Lim, Ee Jean [1 ]
Dmitriy, Shkarupa [3 ]
Vladimir, Obidnyak [4 ]
Dmitriy, Gorelov [4 ]
Igor, Semeniakin [5 ]
Gadzhiev, Nariman [3 ]
机构
[1] Singapore Gen Hosp, Dept Urol, Singapore, Singapore
[2] Ng Teng Feng Gen Hosp, Dept Urol, Singapore, Singapore
[3] St Petersburg State Univ Hosp, Dept Urol, Str Optikov 38, B1,App 35, St Petersburg 197342, Russia
[4] Pavlov First St Petersburg State Med Univ, St Petersburg State Univ Hosp, Dept Urol, St Petersburg, Russia
[5] Joint Stock Co Medsi Grp, Dept Urol, Moscow, Russia
关键词
Ureteral stent; Removal; Ultrasound; Retriever; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; SYMPTOMS;
D O I
10.1007/s00345-023-04437-5
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
PurposeTo assess the safety and effectiveness of magnetic ureteric stent removal with a special magnet retriever under ultrasound guidance.MethodsA total of 60 male patients, who underwent ureteroscopy from October 2020 to March 2022, were prospectively enrolled and randomized into two groups. Group A patients underwent conventional double-J (DJ) stent insertion and subsequent stent removal via flexible cystoscopy. Group B patients underwent stent insertion using magnetic ureteric stent [Blackstar, Urotech (Achenmuhle, Germany)] and stents were removed using a special magnet retriever under ultrasound guidance. Stents were left in situ for 30 days in both groups. All patients had follow-ups with a ureter stent symptoms questionnaire at 3- and 30-days post stent insertion. Visual analog scale (VAS) was assessed immediately after stent removal.ResultsStent removal time (142.5 s vs 142.5 s, group A vs group B, p < 0.0001) and VAS scores (4 vs 1, group A vs group B, p = 0.0008) were significantly lower in Group B. There were no statistically significant differences between both groups in the "urinary symptoms" (p = 0.3471) and "sexual matters" (p = 0.6126) in the USSQ domains. There was marginal statistical significance favoring Group A in the "body pain" (p = 0.0303), "general health score" (p = 0.0072), "additional problems" (p = 0.0142), and "work performance" (p < 0.0001) domains.ConclusionsMagnetic ureteric stent can be considered as a safe and efficient alternative to conventional DJ stent. This approach avoids the need for cystoscopy, saving resources while minimizing patient discomfort.
引用
收藏
页码:2889 / 2896
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] UMBILICAL VEIN CATHETER VERSUS DOUBLE J STENT FOR URETERIC ANASTOMOSIS IN RENAL TRANSPLANTATION: A SINGLE CENTRE, OPEN LABEL, RANDOMIZED TRIAL
    Swaroop, Vishnu
    Pereira, Arshiya
    Smith, Stella
    Masood, Omar
    Pararajasingam, Ravi
    Augustine, Titus
    Riad, Hany
    Mehra, Sanjay
    Tavakoli, Afshin
    TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 28 : 118 - 118
  • [22] The effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers: A single-center randomized controlled trial
    Rowland, Heidi
    Hichens, Lisa
    Williams, Alison
    Hills, Darren
    Killingback, Norman
    Ewings, Paul
    Clark, Steven
    Ireland, Anthony J.
    Sandy, Jonathan R.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2007, 132 (06) : 730 - 737
  • [23] THE FIRST DRUG ELUTING URETERAL STENT: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED, MULTICENTER CLINICAL TRIAL TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF A KETOROLAC-LOADED URETERAL STENT
    Lingeman, James E.
    Denstedt, John D.
    Preminger, Glenn M.
    Li, Jamie
    Krambeck, Amy E.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 181 (04): : 725 - 726
  • [24] The effectiveness and safety of Tai Chi for patients with essential hypertension: study protocol for an open-label single-center randomized controlled trial
    Li, Yuxi
    Zhong, Dongling
    Dong, Chao
    Shi, Lihong
    Zheng, Yaling
    Liu, Yongguo
    Li, Qiaoqin
    Zheng, Hui
    Li, Juan
    Liu, Tianyu
    Jin, Rongjiang
    BMC COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE AND THERAPIES, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [25] The effectiveness and safety of Tai Chi for patients with essential hypertension: study protocol for an open-label single-center randomized controlled trial
    Yuxi Li
    Dongling Zhong
    Chao Dong
    Lihong Shi
    Yaling Zheng
    Yongguo Liu
    Qiaoqin Li
    Hui Zheng
    Juan Li
    Tianyu Liu
    Rongjiang Jin
    BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, 21
  • [26] Re: A Novel Drug Eluting Ureteral Stent: A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of a Ketorolac Loaded Ureteral Stent
    Keeley, F. X.
    Timoney, A. G.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 184 (05): : 2217 - 2218
  • [27] Clinical Effectiveness of Single Pigtail Suture Stent on Patient Comfort: A Double-Blind Prospective Randomized Trial
    Bostanci, Yakup
    Mercimek, Mehmet Necmettin
    Gulsen, Murat
    Ozden, Ender
    Yakupoglu, Yarkin Kamil
    Sarikaya, Saban
    JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2020, 30 (11): : 1183 - 1188
  • [28] A Single-Center Randomized Control Trial Evaluating Timing of Preparation for Capsule Enteroscopy
    Black, Katherine
    Joiner, Cynthia I.
    Peter, Shajan
    Weber, Frederick H.
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2012, 75 (04) : 303 - 304
  • [29] Intraoperative Strict Blood Glucose Control in Orthotopic Liver Transplantation: A Single Center Randomized Control Trial
    Lee, David D.
    Mummert, Cathy
    Gooden, Christie W.
    Picton, Paul
    Pelletier, Shawn J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2012, 12 : 64 - 64
  • [30] Safety and efficacy of titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labor: A single-center randomized control trial
    Wang, Xiu
    Zhang, Chao
    Li, Xia
    Qi, Hongyan
    Liu, Qing
    Lei, Jing
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2021, 154 (03) : 436 - 443