S Sevcenco1, K Eredics2, L Lusuardi3, Hans Christoph Klingler4,5. 1. Department of Urology, Donauspital, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Urology, Kaiser-Franz-Josef-Spital, Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Urology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. 4. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Wilhelminenspital, Montlearstrasse 37, Vienna, Austria. HansChristoph.Klingler@wienkav.at. 5. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. HansChristoph.Klingler@wienkav.at.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the morbidity, complication rate, and pain perception during removal of a novel ureteric stent with a magnetic end using a-traumatic retrieval catheter. METHODS: Between November 2013 and July 2015, 151 consecutive patients who underwent semirigid ureterorenoscopy (URS) for stone removal were prospectively enrolled. Stent removal was performed under local anesthesia using a special magnetic-end stent remover 1 week following URS. At follow-up, we obtained patients' medical history, urine culture result, renal ultrasonogram, and visual analog scale (VAS) score regarding stent irritation (VAS 1) and pain during removal (VAS 2). RESULTS: Pain perception during stent removal was significantly less painful in patients with a magnet stent than in those with a regular stent (p < 0.001). Stent irritation was slightly higher in patients with an indwelling magnet stent than in those with a regular stent (p < 0.001). No significant differences in stent irritations were found in patients who had a magnetic stent for 4 weeks after laparoscopic pyeloplasty (p = 0.20). Patients with a magnetic stent experienced significantly less pain during removal with a median VAS 2 score of 2.5 and a mean VAS 2 score of 2.58 [standard deviation (SD) ± 0.90] than those without a magnetic stent a median VAS 2 of 6 and a mean VAS 2 of 5.88 (SD ± 1.43). The stent length correlated with stent irritation (p = 0.05), and it significantly correlated with pain during removal (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The magnetic-end ureteric double-J stent is a safe option associated with less pain, particularly for male patients requiring short-term ureteric stenting.
PURPOSE: To investigate the morbidity, complication rate, and pain perception during removal of a novel ureteric stent with a magnetic end using a-traumatic retrieval catheter. METHODS: Between November 2013 and July 2015, 151 consecutive patients who underwent semirigid ureterorenoscopy (URS) for stone removal were prospectively enrolled. Stent removal was performed under local anesthesia using a special magnetic-end stent remover 1 week following URS. At follow-up, we obtained patients' medical history, urine culture result, renal ultrasonogram, and visual analog scale (VAS) score regarding stent irritation (VAS 1) and pain during removal (VAS 2). RESULTS:Pain perception during stent removal was significantly less painful in patients with a magnet stent than in those with a regular stent (p < 0.001). Stent irritation was slightly higher in patients with an indwelling magnet stent than in those with a regular stent (p < 0.001). No significant differences in stent irritations were found in patients who had a magnetic stent for 4 weeks after laparoscopic pyeloplasty (p = 0.20). Patients with a magnetic stent experienced significantly less pain during removal with a median VAS 2 score of 2.5 and a mean VAS 2 score of 2.58 [standard deviation (SD) ± 0.90] than those without a magnetic stent a median VAS 2 of 6 and a mean VAS 2 of 5.88 (SD ± 1.43). The stent length correlated with stent irritation (p = 0.05), and it significantly correlated with pain during removal (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The magnetic-end ureteric double-J stent is a safe option associated with less pain, particularly for male patients requiring short-term ureteric stenting.
Authors: Felix Moltzahn; Katharina Haeni; Frédéric D Birkhäuser; Beat Roth; George N Thalmann; Pascal Zehnder Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Franklin E Kuehhas; Arkadus Miernik; Varun Sharma; Sabina Sevcenco; Elchin Javadli; Ralf Herwig; Tibor Szarvas; Martin Schoenthaler; Georg Schatzl; Peter Weibl Journal: Urology Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Christian Türk; Aleš Petřík; Kemal Sarica; Christian Seitz; Andreas Skolarikos; Michael Straub; Thomas Knoll Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: John A O'Kelly; Usman M Haroon; Abdul J Rauf; Kieran J Breen; Barry B McGuire; Ijaz A Cheema; Liza McLornan; James C Forde Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 1.568