Badar Murtaza1, Sarwar Alvi2. 1. Department of Urology, Combined Military Hospital (CMH), Sialkot. 2. Department of Urology, Combined Military Hospital (CMH), Kharian.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical presentation of forgotten ureteral stents and highlight the etiological factors resulting in the retention of these stents. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Urology, Armed Forces Institute of Urology, Rawalpindi, from January 2010 to June 2011. METHODOLOGY: Thirty-eight patients, with forgotten ureteral stents, retained for more than 6 months duration, were enrolled. A detailed evaluation was performed, along with the questions regarding the patients' opinion about the ureteral stents. They were specially asked whether they knew about the stents or were they formally informed regarding the stents. Subsequently, the patients were managed according to their clinical condition. RESULTS: The male to female ratio was 2.1:1 aged 23 - 69 years, mean being 40.24 ±12.59 years. The time of presentation after the ureteral stenting was 7 - 180 months (mean = 28.89 ±33.435 years). Seven patients (18.4%) reported with chronic kidney disease, including ESRD in two cases. Recurrent UTI was seen in 28 cases (73.6%), calculus formed over the stents in 20 cases (52.6%), and stent fragmented in 5 patients (13.1%). Majority of patients, (n = 23, 60.5%), were not even aware of the placement of these stents while 8 (21.0%) knew but were reluctant about its removal. In 3 cases (7.8%), the relatives knew about the stent but never informed the patients. The stent had been removed in 2 cases (5.2%), but the other broken fragment was missed. One case (2.6%) each had a misconception about the permanent placement of the stents like cardiac stents and regarding degradation of the stents in situ. CONCLUSION: Forgotten ureteral stents produce clinical features ranging from recurrent UTI to ESRD. This preventable urological complication is primarily due to the unawareness or ignorance of the patients and their relatives regarding the stent.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical presentation of forgotten ureteral stents and highlight the etiological factors resulting in the retention of these stents. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Urology, Armed Forces Institute of Urology, Rawalpindi, from January 2010 to June 2011. METHODOLOGY: Thirty-eight patients, with forgotten ureteral stents, retained for more than 6 months duration, were enrolled. A detailed evaluation was performed, along with the questions regarding the patients' opinion about the ureteral stents. They were specially asked whether they knew about the stents or were they formally informed regarding the stents. Subsequently, the patients were managed according to their clinical condition. RESULTS: The male to female ratio was 2.1:1 aged 23 - 69 years, mean being 40.24 ±12.59 years. The time of presentation after the ureteral stenting was 7 - 180 months (mean = 28.89 ±33.435 years). Seven patients (18.4%) reported with chronic kidney disease, including ESRD in two cases. Recurrent UTI was seen in 28 cases (73.6%), calculus formed over the stents in 20 cases (52.6%), and stent fragmented in 5 patients (13.1%). Majority of patients, (n = 23, 60.5%), were not even aware of the placement of these stents while 8 (21.0%) knew but were reluctant about its removal. In 3 cases (7.8%), the relatives knew about the stent but never informed the patients. The stent had been removed in 2 cases (5.2%), but the other broken fragment was missed. One case (2.6%) each had a misconception about the permanent placement of the stents like cardiac stents and regarding degradation of the stents in situ. CONCLUSION: Forgotten ureteral stents produce clinical features ranging from recurrent UTI to ESRD. This preventable urological complication is primarily due to the unawareness or ignorance of the patients and their relatives regarding the stent.