Literature DB >> 11339397

Comparison of symptoms related to positioning of double-pigtail stent in upper pole versus renal pelvis.

E N Liatsikos1, D Gershbaum, R Kapoor, J Fogarty, C Z Dinlenc, N O Bernardo, A D Smith.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study was a comparison of the symptomatology associated with placement of the upper coil of a double-pigtail stent in the upper pole or the renal pelvis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective study with 40 patients was performed. In 20 patients, the stent was placed in the upper pole (Group A) and in another 20 patients (Group B) in the renal pelvis. A questionnaire was addressed to all patients before the removal of the stent concerning the presence and severity of flank pain (using a standardized 10-point scale), the presence and severity of urinary urgency (using a standardized 10-point scale), the presence of dysuria, and quality of life with the stent in place.
RESULTS: Flank pain was present in 17 (85%) and 15 (75%) patients in Groups A and B, respectively. The average severity of flank pain was 4.3 (range 0-7) and 4.5 (range 0-10) in Group A and B, respectively (p = 0.764). Urinary urgency was present in 13 (65%) and 15 (75%), patients in Group A and B, respectively. The average severity of urgency was 3.1 (range 0-7) and 5.3 (range 0-10) in Group A and B, respectively (p = 0.037). Dysuria was present in 4 (20%) and 13 (65%), and the average quality of life score was 2.5 and 3.05 in Group A and B, respectively (p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: Positioning of the proximal end of the double-pigtail stent in the upper pole of the kidney appears to be better tolerated by patients than is the standard insertion in the renal pelvis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11339397     DOI: 10.1089/089277901750161854

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  7 in total

1.  A preliminary study of the variability in location of the ureteral orifices with bladder filling by fluoroscopic guidance: the gender difference.

Authors:  Insang Hwang; Sun-Ouck Kim; Ho-Song Yu; Eu-Chang Hwang; Seung-Il Jung; Taek-Won Kang; Dongdeuk Kwon; Kwangsung Park
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  Size does matter: ureteral stents with a smaller diameter show advantages regarding urinary symptoms, pain levels and general health.

Authors:  Sebastian Nestler; B Witte; L Schilchegger; J Jones
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Changes in Urinary Symptoms and Tolerance due to Long-term Ureteral Double-J Stenting.

Authors:  Jae-Sung Lim; Chong-Koo Sul; Ki-Hak Song; Yong-Gil Na; Ju-Hyun Shin; Tae-Hoon Oh; Young-Ho Kim
Journal:  Int Neurourol J       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 2.835

4.  Design of a fully intraureteral stent and proof-of-concept in vivo evaluation.

Authors:  Yaniv Shilo; Udi Willenz; Brian Berkowitz
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2022-06

5.  Simplified method using kidney / ureter / bladder x-ray to determine the appropriate length of ureteral stents.

Authors:  Makoto Taguchi; Kenji Yoshida; Motohiko Sugi; Hidefumi Kinoshita; Tadashi Matsuda
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2018 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.541

6.  A ureteral stent crossing the bladder midline leads to worse urinary symptoms.

Authors:  Makoto Taguchi; Kenji Yoshida; Motohiko Sugi; Tadashi Matsuda; Hidefumi Kinoshita
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2017-11-07

Review 7.  Ureteral stents in urolithiasis.

Authors:  Matthias Beysens; Thomas O Tailly
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2018-07-25
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.