OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the morbidity of the magnitip double-J stent (DJ), compare its morbidity to the standard stent, and evaluate the possibility of retrieving the magnetic tip of the DJ stent without cystoscopy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 50 patients having a lower ureteric stone, who underwent uretroscopic stone retrieval and required the use of a DJ, were randomly assigned to 2 groups, each containing 25 patients. Patients in group A were subjected to exploration with a uretroscope and a magnitip DJ while those in group B received a uretroscope and a standard DJ. The morbidity of both types of DJs was assessed by the Arabic version of the ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ). RESULTS: There was a high level of statistically significant differences between the two groups with regards to the total score of the USSQ, which were higher in group A as compared to group B (126.96±14.76 vs. 98.24±12.9) (p=0.001). Further, the cost of the total procedure was significantly higher in group B (9600±1456.59 vs. 8444±783.73) (p=0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between both groups regarding the application, retrieval accuracy, and discomfort caused by DJ removal. CONCLUSION: The morbidity caused by the magnetic DJ was found to be higher. However, the removal of the magnetic DJ was less costly than the standard DJ.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the morbidity of the magnitip double-J stent (DJ), compare its morbidity to the standard stent, and evaluate the possibility of retrieving the magnetic tip of the DJ stent without cystoscopy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 50 patients having a lower ureteric stone, who underwent uretroscopic stone retrieval and required the use of a DJ, were randomly assigned to 2 groups, each containing 25 patients. Patients in group A were subjected to exploration with a uretroscope and a magnitip DJ while those in group B received a uretroscope and a standard DJ. The morbidity of both types of DJs was assessed by the Arabic version of the ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ). RESULTS: There was a high level of statistically significant differences between the two groups with regards to the total score of the USSQ, which were higher in group A as compared to group B (126.96±14.76 vs. 98.24±12.9) (p=0.001). Further, the cost of the total procedure was significantly higher in group B (9600±1456.59 vs. 8444±783.73) (p=0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between both groups regarding the application, retrieval accuracy, and discomfort caused by DJ removal. CONCLUSION: The morbidity caused by the magnetic DJ was found to be higher. However, the removal of the magnetic DJ was less costly than the standard DJ.
Authors: Alexandre A Barros; Ana Rita; C Duarte; Ricardo A Pires; Belém Sampaio-Marques; Paula Ludovico; Estevão Lima; João F Mano; Rui L Reis Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 3.368
Authors: Ahmed R El-Nahas; Mohamed M Elsaadany; Mohamed Tharwat; Ahmed Mosbah; Amr H Metwally; Amr Hawary; Francis X Keeley; Khaled Z Sheir Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2014-09-10
Authors: Thomas Hughes; Amelia Pietropaolo; Patrick Jones; Marco Oderda; Paolo Gontero; Bhaskar K Somani Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 3.092