Takashi Yoshida1,2, Takaaki Inoue3,2, Makoto Taguchi1,2, Tomoaki Matsuzaki3,2, Takashi Murota3,2, Hidefumi Kinoshita2, Tadashi Matsuda2. 1. Department of Urology and Andrology, Kori Hospital, Kansai Medical University , Osaka , Japan. 2. Department of Urology and Andrology, Kansai Medical University , Osaka , Japan. 3. Department of Urology and Andrology, General Medical Center, Kansai Medical University , Osaka , Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared the efficacy and safety of complete and conventional stent placement to relieve ureteral stent related symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomized 85 patients who requiredureteral stent placement after lithotripsy into an intraureteral or a conventional stent placement group. The ureteral stent remained in place until postoperative day 14. We evaluated scores on the visual analog scale pain, the SF-36 (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey), the I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) and the OABSS (Overactive Bladder Symptom Score) on postoperative days 3 and 14. We also assessed the total amount of analgesics administered and stent related complications. RESULTS: Overall the records of 80 patients were analyzed. Pain scores were significantly lower in the intraureteral vs the conventional stent placement group (postoperative days 3 and 14, 4.85 vs 9.78, p = 0.003, and 3.15 vs 6.20, p = 0.014, respectively). The total I-PSS score (postoperative days 3 and 14, 10.41 vs 14.90, p = 0.006, and 11.67 vs 16.10, p = 0.022, respectively) and total analgesic use (19.23 vs 88.54 mg, p <0.001) were significantly lower in the intraureteral group. However, differences in the SF-36 and the total OABSS scores did not significantly differ. On subgroup analysis the pain score in the groin and bladder areas, incomplete emptying and daytime frequency on the I-PSS, the quality of life index and daytime frequency on the OABSS were significantly better in the intraureteral stent placement group than the conventional stent placement group on postoperative days 3 and 14 (all p <0.05). There was no difference in the complication rate between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS:Intraureteral stent placement may be associated with less ureteral stent related discomfort than conventional stent placement. This novel placement method is feasible and safe, and it can be immediately used in daily clinical practice.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We compared the efficacy and safety of complete and conventional stent placement to relieve ureteral stent related symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomized 85 patients who required ureteral stent placement after lithotripsy into an intraureteral or a conventional stent placement group. The ureteral stent remained in place until postoperative day 14. We evaluated scores on the visual analog scale pain, the SF-36 (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey), the I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) and the OABSS (Overactive Bladder Symptom Score) on postoperative days 3 and 14. We also assessed the total amount of analgesics administered and stent related complications. RESULTS: Overall the records of 80 patients were analyzed. Pain scores were significantly lower in the intraureteral vs the conventional stent placement group (postoperative days 3 and 14, 4.85 vs 9.78, p = 0.003, and 3.15 vs 6.20, p = 0.014, respectively). The total I-PSS score (postoperative days 3 and 14, 10.41 vs 14.90, p = 0.006, and 11.67 vs 16.10, p = 0.022, respectively) and total analgesic use (19.23 vs 88.54 mg, p <0.001) were significantly lower in the intraureteral group. However, differences in the SF-36 and the total OABSS scores did not significantly differ. On subgroup analysis the pain score in the groin and bladder areas, incomplete emptying and daytime frequency on the I-PSS, the quality of life index and daytime frequency on the OABSS were significantly better in the intraureteral stent placement group than the conventional stent placement group on postoperative days 3 and 14 (all p <0.05). There was no difference in the complication rate between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intraureteral stent placement may be associated with less ureteral stent related discomfort than conventional stent placement. This novel placement method is feasible and safe, and it can be immediately used in daily clinical practice.
Authors: Federico Soria; Julia E de La Cruz; Tomás Fernandez; Alberto Budia; Álvaro Serrano; Francisco M Sanchez-Margallo Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2021-04
Authors: Federico Soria; Julia E de La Cruz; Juan Pablo Caballero-Romeu; Manuel Pamplona; Daniel Pérez-Fentes; Luis Resel-Folskerma; Francisco M Sanchez-Margallo Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2021-02-28 Impact factor: 2.264