MAGnetic REtriaval Device for Minimally Invasive Ureter Stent Removal.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Journal of endourology Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-05 DOI:10.1089/end.2024.0042
Mladen Stankovic, Laura Wolff, Teresa Wieder, Joao Mendes, Bastian Schumacher
{"title":"MAGnetic REtriaval Device for Minimally Invasive Ureter Stent Removal.","authors":"Mladen Stankovic, Laura Wolff, Teresa Wieder, Joao Mendes, Bastian Schumacher","doi":"10.1089/end.2024.0042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Purpose:</i></b> To assess the effectiveness and pain intensity associated with magnetic ureteral stent removal using a retriever, without the aid of ultrasound guidance. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We prospectively enrolled 100 patients who underwent retrograde rigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy with or without laser lithotripsy for ureteronephrolithiasis treatment from September 2021 to June 2023. These patients were assigned in two groups. Group 1 underwent the traditional ureteral stent insertion, while Group 2 underwent magnetic ureteral stent insertion. Both insertion and removal times were documented. The indwelling time for ureteral stents was 14 days. One group underwent stent removal via flexible cystoscopy using grasping forceps and the other group using just a magnetic retriever, without the aid of ultrasound guidance. The numeric pain rating scale, recommendation rate, and a standardized self-answered ureter stent symptoms questionnaire (USSQ) were obtained directly after stent removal. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Both groups presented comparable characteristics in factors such as age, body mass index, history of stone treatments, procedure type, and complication rates during and post-surgery. Time taken for ureteral stent insertion did not differ significantly between the groups (131.2 seconds for Group 1 <i>vs</i> 159.1 seconds for Group 2). However, the stent removal time (152.1 seconds for Group 1 <i>vs</i> 35.4 seconds for Group 2) and pain intensity (6 for Group 1 <i>vs</i> 2 for Group 2) were significantly lower for Group 2. Furthermore, five out of the six sections of the USSQ showed significantly better results for Group 2. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The use of magnetic ureteral stents, as a safe and efficient alternative to conventional ureteral stents, not only eliminates the need for cystoscopy but also conserves resources and reduces patient discomfort.</p>","PeriodicalId":15723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endourology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endourology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2024.0042","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the effectiveness and pain intensity associated with magnetic ureteral stent removal using a retriever, without the aid of ultrasound guidance. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 100 patients who underwent retrograde rigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy with or without laser lithotripsy for ureteronephrolithiasis treatment from September 2021 to June 2023. These patients were assigned in two groups. Group 1 underwent the traditional ureteral stent insertion, while Group 2 underwent magnetic ureteral stent insertion. Both insertion and removal times were documented. The indwelling time for ureteral stents was 14 days. One group underwent stent removal via flexible cystoscopy using grasping forceps and the other group using just a magnetic retriever, without the aid of ultrasound guidance. The numeric pain rating scale, recommendation rate, and a standardized self-answered ureter stent symptoms questionnaire (USSQ) were obtained directly after stent removal. Results: Both groups presented comparable characteristics in factors such as age, body mass index, history of stone treatments, procedure type, and complication rates during and post-surgery. Time taken for ureteral stent insertion did not differ significantly between the groups (131.2 seconds for Group 1 vs 159.1 seconds for Group 2). However, the stent removal time (152.1 seconds for Group 1 vs 35.4 seconds for Group 2) and pain intensity (6 for Group 1 vs 2 for Group 2) were significantly lower for Group 2. Furthermore, five out of the six sections of the USSQ showed significantly better results for Group 2. Conclusions: The use of magnetic ureteral stents, as a safe and efficient alternative to conventional ureteral stents, not only eliminates the need for cystoscopy but also conserves resources and reduces patient discomfort.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于微创输尿管支架移除的 MAGnetic REtriaval 装置(MAGREUS)。
目的 评估在没有超声引导的情况下使用磁性输尿管支架移除器的有效性和疼痛强度。方法 我们前瞻性地招募了 100 名在 2021 年 9 月至 2023 年 6 月期间接受逆行刚性/柔性输尿管造影术,同时接受或不接受激光碎石术治疗输尿管肾结石的患者。这些患者被分为两组。第一组接受传统的输尿管支架插入术,第二组接受输尿管磁性支架插入术。插入和移除时间均有记录。输尿管支架的留置时间为 14 天。一组使用抓钳通过柔性膀胱镜取出支架,另一组仅使用磁力牵引器,不借助超声引导。支架移除后直接进行疼痛评分量表(NRS)、推荐率和标准化输尿管支架症状问卷(USSQ)的自答。结果 两组患者在年龄、体重指数(BMI)、结石治疗史、手术类型、术中和术后并发症发生率等因素方面具有可比性。两组插入输尿管支架的时间无明显差异(第一组为 131.2 秒,第二组为 159.1 秒)。然而,第 2 组的支架移除时间(第 1 组 152.1 秒,第 2 组 35.4 秒)和疼痛强度(第 1 组 6 级,第 2 组 2 级)明显低于第 1 组。此外,在 USSQ 的六个部分中,第 2 组有五个部分的结果明显更好。结论 使用磁性输尿管支架作为传统输尿管支架的一种安全有效的替代方法,不仅无需进行膀胱镜检查,还能节约资源并减少患者的不适感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of endourology
Journal of endourology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
254
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Endourology, JE Case Reports, and Videourology are the leading peer-reviewed journal, case reports publication, and innovative videojournal companion covering all aspects of minimally invasive urology research, applications, and clinical outcomes. The leading journal of minimally invasive urology for over 30 years, Journal of Endourology is the essential publication for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest surgical technologies in endoscopic, laparoscopic, robotic, and image-guided procedures as they apply to benign and malignant diseases of the genitourinary tract. This flagship journal includes the companion videojournal Videourology™ with every subscription. While Journal of Endourology remains focused on publishing rigorously peer reviewed articles, Videourology accepts original videos containing material that has not been reported elsewhere, except in the form of an abstract or a conference presentation. Journal of Endourology coverage includes: The latest laparoscopic, robotic, endoscopic, and image-guided techniques for treating both benign and malignant conditions Pioneering research articles Controversial cases in endourology Techniques in endourology with accompanying videos Reviews and epochs in endourology Endourology survey section of endourology relevant manuscripts published in other journals.
期刊最新文献
Comparative Analysis of Safety and Efficacy Between Anterior and Posterior Calyceal Entry in Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Does Incision Location Matter? Analysis of Single-Port Cosmesis in Urologic Reconstructive Surgery. Bio of Pankaj N Maheshwari, MS, DNB, MCh, FRCS. Digital Flexible Ureteroscope: Evaluating Factors Responsible for Damage and Implementing a Mandatory Certification Program for Usage. Impact of Residual Stone Fragments on Risk of Unplanned Stone Events Following Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1