Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Ureteric stenting with magnetic retrieval: an alternative to traditional methods.
O'Kelly, John A; Haroon, Usman M; Rauf, Abdul J; Breen, Kieran J; McGuire, Barry B; Cheema, Ijaz A; McLornan, Liza; Forde, James C.
Afiliação
  • O'Kelly JA; Department of Urology, James Connolly Memorial Hospital, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15, Ireland. johnokelly@rcsi.ie.
  • Haroon UM; Department of Urology, James Connolly Memorial Hospital, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15, Ireland.
  • Rauf AJ; Department of Urology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
  • Breen KJ; Department of Urology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
  • McGuire BB; Department of Urology, James Connolly Memorial Hospital, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15, Ireland.
  • Cheema IA; Department of Urology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
  • McLornan L; Department of Urology, James Connolly Memorial Hospital, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15, Ireland.
  • Forde JC; Department of Urology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Ir J Med Sci ; 189(1): 289-293, 2020 Feb.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31418152
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Ureteric stents are frequently placed following endo-urological procedures. These stents cause significant morbidity for patients. Standard ureteric stents are removed by flexible cystoscopy. This procedure can be unpleasant for patients and requires additional resources. A newly designed magnetic stent allows removal in an outpatient setting. The aim of our study is to compare the magnetic stent and standard ureteric stents with regard to morbidity, pain on stent removal and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS:

This study was carried out across two sites between September 2016 and July 2017. In site A, a magnetic stent (Urotech, Black-Star®) is removed by magnetic retrieval device. Fifty consecutive patients completed the validated Ureteric Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) and visual analogue scale (VAS) at the time of stent removal. On site B, a soft polyurethane stent (Cook Universa) was removed by flexible cystoscopy. Fifty patients were identified retrospectively and completed questionnaires by post. Cost analysis was also performed.

RESULTS:

One hundred questionnaires were included for analysis. No significant difference in stent morbidity as assessed by the USSQ was shown between both groups. Median duration of stenting was significantly shorter in the magnetic stent group (5.5 versus 21.5 days, p < 0.001). Mean pain on stent removal was significantly less with magnetic retrieval (2.9 versus 3.9, p < 0.05). Complication rates were similar in both groups. Cost analysis showed a cost saving of €203 per patient with the magnetic stent group.

CONCLUSION:

Magnetic stents cause similar morbidity for patients compared with standard stents removed by flexible cystoscopy; they are associated with less pain at removal and are cost saving.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ureter / Stents / Remoção de Dispositivo / Fenômenos Magnéticos Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ureter / Stents / Remoção de Dispositivo / Fenômenos Magnéticos Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article