Literature DB >> 23768523

A prospective evaluation of pain associated with stone passage, stents, and stent removal using a visual analog scale.

Franklin E Kuehhas1, Arkadus Miernik, Varun Sharma, Sabina Sevcenco, Elchin Javadli, Ralf Herwig, Tibor Szarvas, Martin Schoenthaler, Georg Schatzl, Peter Weibl.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perception of colicky pain due to ureteral stones and double-J (DJ)-associated discomfort and to evaluate the role of clinical parameters that might influence the perception of pain.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From November 2011 to May 2012, 124 consecutive patients with colicky pain due to ureteral stones and ureteroscopic stone extraction underwent DJ stent placement. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess the pain at ureteral colic, during indwelling DJ stent, and at DJ stent removal. The association of clinical data with pain scores was also analyzed.
RESULTS: Pain perception at the time of colic did not vary according to sex (P = .804), age (P = .674), or DJ stent length (P = .389). Stone size (<4 mm) was a predictor of a high VAS score (P = .001). Patients with recurrent stone formation had significantly less pain at the time of colic (P = .004), and DJ stent removal (P = .004) than those with the first instance of stone formation. The clinical experience at cystoscopic DJ stent removal influenced pain perception (P <.001).
CONCLUSION: Using a VAS for the evaluation of pain perception is a valid method for the objectification of subjective discomfort. The VAS is an easy to administer scale and provides accurate information on the patients' status. Additional studies with larger cohorts focusing on pain perception using the VAS and other validated questionnaires are recommended to produce more consistent data.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23768523     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.04.031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  8 in total

1.  α1-blockers for the reduction of ureteric stent-related symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Peng Zhang; Wan-Li Hu; Bei Cheng; Long Cheng; Yang-Jun Zeng; Gang Wang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2015-12-16       Impact factor: 2.447

2.  Evaluation of pain perception associated with use of the magnetic-end ureteric double-J stent for short-term ureteric stenting.

Authors:  S Sevcenco; K Eredics; L Lusuardi; Hans Christoph Klingler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Patient experiences and preferences with ureteral stent removal.

Authors:  Jeffrey C Loh-Doyle; Roger K Low; Manoj Monga; Mike M Nguyen
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Rethinking of ureteral stent removal using an extraction string; what patients feel and what is patients' preference? : a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Dae Ji Kim; Jeong Hwan Son; Seok Heun Jang; Jae Won Lee; Dae Sung Cho; Chae Hong Lim
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 5.  Ureteric stents on extraction strings: a systematic review of literature.

Authors:  Rachel Oliver; Hannah Wells; Olivier Traxer; Thomas Knoll; Omar Aboumarzouk; Chandra S Biyani; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  Impact of loop-tail ureteral stents on ureteral stent-related symptoms immediately after ureteroscopic lithotripsy: Comparison with pigtail ureteral stents.

Authors:  Makoto Taguchi; Takaaki Inoue; Kouei Muguruma; Takashi Murota; Hidefumi Kinoshita; Tadashi Matsuda
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2017-10-23

7.  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

8.  The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better?

Authors:  Zhenkai Luo; Binbin Jiao; Hang Zhao; Tao Huang; Lin Geng; Guan Zhang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 3.411

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.