Catéter doble J magnético: evaluación de la tolerancia e impacto en la calidad de vida en comparación con el catéter doble J tradicional / Magnetic double-J stent: evaluation of tolerance and impact on quality of life compared to traditional double-J stent

Introducción: La colocación de un catéter doble J (DJ) es uno de los procedimientos más realizados en urología. Puede causar un impacto negativo en la calidad de vida, siendo necesaria una cistoscopia para su extracción. El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar la sintomatología e impacto en la calidad de vida derivados del uso del catéter DJ magnético (Black Star®) y compararla con la del DJ tradicional (OptiMed®).Material y métodosRealizamos un estudio comparativo, prospectivo y aleatorizado en 46 pacientes sometidos a ureterorrenoscopia (URS) en quienes se colocó un DJ entre agosto del 2019 y junio del 2020. De los pacientes incluidos, 23 llevaron un DJ tradicional (grupo A) y 23 un DJ magnético (grupo B). Valoramos en ambos grupos los resultados del cuestionario de síntomas de catéter ureteral (USSQ). Evaluamos el dolor de la extracción mediante la escala visual analógica (EVA) y la dificultad de la retirada. Revisamos la necesidad de atención médica por problemas relacionados con el catéter o surgidos tras la extracción.ResultadosNo observamos diferencias estadísticamente significativas en el cuestionario USSQ, ni en las complicaciones. El grupo B presentó: menor dolor de la extracción (EVA de 1,52 vs. 4, p = 0,001), menor dificultad en la retirada (1,61 vs. 3, p < 0,001) y menor tiempo de extracción (11,65 vs. 22,17 min p < 0,001).ConclusionesEl DJ magnético es un catéter ureteral que presenta una tolerancia equiparable a los tradicionales, ya que no genera un incremento de la sintomatología urinaria ni empeora la calidad de vida de los pacientes durante su uso. (AU)

Introduction: The placement of a ureteral stent is one of the most widely performed procedures in urology. It can have a negative impact on the patients’ quality of life, requiring a cystoscopy for its removal. The objective of this study is to evaluate the symptoms and impact on quality of life derived from the use of a magnetic double-J stent (Black Star ®) and compare them to those presented in patients with a traditional double-J stent (OptiMed®).Material and methodsWe conducted a comparative, prospective, randomized study in 46 patients who underwent ureterorenoscopy with double-J stent placement between August 2019 and June 2020. Of all patients included, 23 had a traditional double-J stent placed (group A) and 23 had a magnetic double-J stent (group B) placed. We evaluated the results of the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) in both groups, assessed the technical difficulty related to stent removal and the pain during the procedure using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). We also reviewed the need for medical attention due to problems related to the stent or after its removal.ResultsThere were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding the answers in the USSQ and the complications related to the use of the stent. Group B showed less pain (1,52 vs. 4, VAS, p = 0.001) and less difficulty during removal (1,61 vs. 3, p < 0,001) associated with a shorter procedure duration (11,65 min vs. 22,17 min p < 0,001).ConclusionsThe tolerance shown by the use of magnetic double-J is comparable to the tolerance of traditional stent, since it does not cause an increase in urinary symptoms nor worsens the quality of life of patients during its use. (AU)

Magnetic double-J stent: Evaluation of tolerance and impact on quality of life compared to traditional double-J stent.

INTRODUCTION: The placement of a ureteral stent is one of the most widely performed procedures in urology. It can have a negative impact on the patients' quality of life, requiring a cystoscopy for its removal. The objective of this study is to evaluate the symptoms and impact on quality of life derived from the use of a magnetic double-J stent (Black Star®) and compare them to those presented in patients with a traditional double-J stent (OptiMed®). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a comparative, prospective, randomized study in 46 patients who underwent ureterorenoscopy with double-J stent placement between August 2019 and June 2020. Of all patients included, 23 had a traditional double-J stent placed (group A) and 23 had a magnetic double-J stent (group B) placed. We evaluated the results of the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) in both groups, assessed the technical difficulty related to stent removal and the pain during the procedure using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). We also reviewed the need for medical attention due to problems related to the stent or after its removal. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding the answers in the USSQ and the complications related to the use of the stent. Group B showed less pain (1.52 vs. 4, VAS, p = 0.001) and less difficulty during removal (1.61 vs. 3, p < 0.001) associated with a shorter procedure duration (11.65 min vs. 22.17 min p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The tolerance shown by the use of magnetic double-J is comparable to the tolerance of traditional stent, since it does not cause an increase in urinary symptoms nor worsens the quality of life of patients during its use.

[Tolerance of prostate biopsy with use of local anesthesia and benzodiazepines: a randomized, prospective study]. / Tolerancia a la biopsia prostática con el uso de anestesia local y benzodiacepinas: estudio prospectivo aleatorizado.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate biopsy is an uncomfortable procedure, and attempts are therefore being constantly made to try and decrease biopsy-related pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, prospective study including 160 procedures was designed. Inclusion criteria were: first biopsy, PSA < 15 ng/mL, and age under 75 years. Patients were randomized into 4 groups. Group A was the control group, while group B received intracapsular anesthesia (8 mL of 2% lidocaine), group C 5 mg of oral clorazepate dipotassium one hour before biopsy, and group D both local anesthesia and clorazepate. Each patient completed a questionnaire including three 10-point visual analog scales for pain immediately after the procedure and 30 minutes later. RESULTS: Mean pain scores were 5.17 (group A), 1.72 (group B), 2.43 (group C), and 0.88 (group D) in the first questionnaire, and 1.71, 0.25, 0.75 and 0.35 respectively in the second questionnaire. Statistically significant differences were found in the ANOVA test. Group comparisons showed the following: 1. A vs B: statistically significant differences in both questionnaires (p = 0.006 and 0.011). 2. A vs C: a significant difference was found in the first questionnaire (0.051), but not in the second (0.012). 3. A vs D: significant differences in both questionnaires (0.001 and 0.010). No statistically significant differences were seen in both questionnaires (0.825 and 0.685) when benzodiazepines where added to local anesthesia (B vs D). CONCLUSION: Use of benzodiazepines as a single method to decrease biopsy-related pain is not warranted.

Tolerancia a la biopsia prostática con el uso de anestesia local y benzodiacepinas: estudio prospectivo aleatorizado / Tolerance of prostate biopsy with use of local anesthesia and benzodiazepines: a randomized, prospective study

Introducción: la biopsia prostática es un procedimiento molesto, lo que condiciona que constantemente intentemos disminuir el dolor durante su realización. Material y métodos: diseñamos un estudio prospectivo aleatorizado en el que incluimos 160 procedimientos. Criterios de inclusión: primera biopsia, antígeno prostático específico (PSA) < 15 ng/ml, edad menor de 75 años. Los pacientes fueron aleatorizados en 4 grupos. El primero (A) quedó como control, el B recibió anestesia intracapsular (8 ml de lidocaína 2%), el C 5 mg de clorazepato dipotásico vía oral una hora antes y en el D se aplicaron las dos medidas (anestesia local y clorazepato). Se entregó un cuestionario con tres medidas de dolor (valorándolo de 0 a 10) tras el procedimento y otro 30 minutos después. Resultados: las medias del dolor fueron 5,17 (A), 1,72 (B), 2,43 (C) y 0,88 (D) en el primer cuestionario. En el segundo fueron 1,71, 0,25, 0,75 y 0,35, respectivamente. La comparación de medias realizada mediante el test de ANOVA pone de manifiesto diferencias significativas. Al comparar los grupos entre sí encontramos: 1. A frente a B: diferencia significativa en ambos cuestionarios (p 0,006 y 0,011). 2. A frente a C: no significación en el primer cuestionario (0,051) y sí en el segundo (0,012). 3. A frente a D: diferencia en ambos cuestionarios (0,001 y 0,010). El uso de benzodiacepinas añadidas a la anestesia local (B frente a D) no mostró diferencias estadísticas en ambos cuestionarios (0,825 y 0,685). Conclusión: consideramos que el uso de benzodiacepinas no está justificado como método único de control del dolor para la realización de la biopsia prostática(AU)

Introduction: Prostate biopsy is an uncomfortable procedure, and attempts are therefore being constantly made to try and decrease biopsy-related pain. Materials and methods: A randomized, prospective study including 160 procedures was designed. Inclusion criteria were: first biopsy, PSA < 15 ng/mL, and age under 75 years. Patients were randomized into 4 groups. Group A was the control group, while group B received intracapsular anesthesia (8 mL of 2% lidocaine), group C 5 mg of oral clorazepate dipotassium one hour before biopsy, and group D both local anesthesia and clorazepate. Each patient completed a questionnaire including three 10-point visual analog scales for pain immediately after the procedure and 30 minutes later. Results: Mean pain scores were 5.17 (group A), 1.72 (group B), 2.43 (group C), and 0.88 (group D) in the first questionnaire, and 1.71, 0.25, 0.75 and 0.35 respectively in the second questionnaire. Statistically significant di fferences were found in the ANOVA test. Group comparisons showed the following: 1. A vs B: statistically significant di fferences in both questionnaires (p = 0.006 and 0.011). 2. A vs C: a significant di fference was found in the first questionnaire (0.051), but not in the second (0.012). 3. A vs D: significant di fferences in both questionnaires (0.001 and 0.010). No statistically significant differences were seen in both questionnaires (0.825 and 0.685) when benzodiazepines where added to local anesthesia (B vs D). Conclusion: Use of benzodiazepines as a single method to decrease biopsy-related pain is not warranted(AU)