Jan Peter Jessen1, Alberto Breda2, Marianne Brehmer3, Evangelos N Liatsikos4, Felix Millan Rodriguez2, Palle Jörn Sloth Osther5, Cesare Marco Scoffone6, Thomas Knoll1. 1. 1 Department of Urology, Sindelfingen-Boeblingen Medical Center, University of Tuebingen , Sindelfingen, Germany . 2. 2 Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona , Barcelona, Spain . 3. 3 Department of Urology, Karolinska University Stockholm Sweden and Aarhus University Hospital , Stockholm, Denmark . 4. 4 Department of Urology, University of Patras , Athens, Greece . 5. 5 Department of Urology, Lillebaelt Hospital, University of Southern Denmark , Fredericia, Denmark . 6. 6 Department of Urology, Cottolengo Hospital , Torino, Italy .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Semirigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) procedures are safe and efficient treatment options for urolithiasis of all localizations. Sometimes, a Double-J stent is placed in preparation of definitive treatment. The aim of our study was to evaluate the influence of prestenting on the outcome of URS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 565 patients of our prospective, multicenter multinational database who underwent URS for renal or ureteral stones from June 2011 to December 2013. Demographic and stone-related data, surgery time, stone clearance, and complications were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed comparing the prestented and nonstented groups. RESULTS: Demographic data, stone size, and localization were comparable in both groups. Three hundred twenty-three patients were prestented and 242 nonstented. Overall, prestenting had significant influence on the stone-free rate (SFR) (86% prestented vs 74% not prestented, p = 0.0003) and complication rate (6.5% vs 14.5%, p = 0.003), but not on surgery time (55 ± 36 minutes vs 61 ± 35 minutes, p = 0.071). Subgrouped, this was also true for renal stones (83% vs 60%, p = 0.0001, odds ratio [OR] 3.15; confidence interval, CI [1.77, 5.62]/8.7% vs 19.4%, p = 0.02, 0.39 [CI 0.19, 0.83]). For ureteral stones, there was no significant influence on SFR (94% vs 90%, p = 0.4, OR 1.63 [CI 0.63, 4.22]), but significantly more complications (3.1% vs 10.7%, p = 0.02, OR 0.27 [CI 0.08, 0.86]) in the nonstented group. CONCLUSION: Prestenting positively affects safety and efficacy of URS. This is more pronounced in the treatment of kidney stones compared with ureteral stones. Although the SFR for ureteral stones is comparable without prestenting, the complication rate is higher.
INTRODUCTION: Semirigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) procedures are safe and efficient treatment options for urolithiasis of all localizations. Sometimes, a Double-J stent is placed in preparation of definitive treatment. The aim of our study was to evaluate the influence of prestenting on the outcome of URS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 565 patients of our prospective, multicenter multinational database who underwent URS for renal or ureteral stones from June 2011 to December 2013. Demographic and stone-related data, surgery time, stone clearance, and complications were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed comparing the prestented and nonstented groups. RESULTS: Demographic data, stone size, and localization were comparable in both groups. Three hundred twenty-three patients were prestented and 242 nonstented. Overall, prestenting had significant influence on the stone-free rate (SFR) (86% prestented vs 74% not prestented, p = 0.0003) and complication rate (6.5% vs 14.5%, p = 0.003), but not on surgery time (55 ± 36 minutes vs 61 ± 35 minutes, p = 0.071). Subgrouped, this was also true for renal stones (83% vs 60%, p = 0.0001, odds ratio [OR] 3.15; confidence interval, CI [1.77, 5.62]/8.7% vs 19.4%, p = 0.02, 0.39 [CI 0.19, 0.83]). For ureteral stones, there was no significant influence on SFR (94% vs 90%, p = 0.4, OR 1.63 [CI 0.63, 4.22]), but significantly more complications (3.1% vs 10.7%, p = 0.02, OR 0.27 [CI 0.08, 0.86]) in the nonstented group. CONCLUSION: Prestenting positively affects safety and efficacy of URS. This is more pronounced in the treatment of kidney stones compared with ureteral stones. Although the SFR for ureteral stones is comparable without prestenting, the complication rate is higher.
Authors: Y X T Law; J Y C Teoh; D Castellani; E J Lim; E O T Chan; M Wroclawski; G M Pirola; C Giulioni; E Rubilotta; M Gubbioti; S Scarcella; B H Chew; O Traxer; B K Somani; V Gauhar Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jason Y Lee; Sero Andonian; Naeem Bhojani; Jennifer Bjazevic; Ben H Chew; Shubha De; Hazem Elmansy; Andrea G Lantz-Powers; Kenneth T Pace; Trevor D Schuler; Rajiv K Singal; Peter Wang; Michael Ordon Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Jason Y Lee; Sero Andonian; Naeem Bhojani; Jennifer Bjazevic; Ben H Chew; Shubha De; Hazem Elmansy; Andrea G Lantz-Powers; Kenneth T Pace; Trevor D Schuler; Rajiv K Singal; Peter Wang; Michael Ordon Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 1.862