Maximilian Glienke, Marc Kunzelmann, August Sigle, Christian Gratzke, Arkadiusz Miernik, Sebastian Claes, Bernd Jänigen, Philippe-Fabian Pohlmann
{"title":"Comparison of Magnetic and Conventional Double-J Stent Following Kidney Transplantation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Maximilian Glienke, Marc Kunzelmann, August Sigle, Christian Gratzke, Arkadiusz Miernik, Sebastian Claes, Bernd Jänigen, Philippe-Fabian Pohlmann","doi":"10.1097/TXD.0000000000001773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This monocentric, randomized controlled trial aims to compare the outcomes of kidney transplant recipients with magnetic double-J (DJ) stents versus conventional DJ stents. Specifically, we assessed stent-related symptoms, procedural difficulties, pain and duration of removal, and associated costs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 30 patients were randomly assigned to receive either a magnetic DJ (mDJ) stent or a conventional, standard DJ (sDJ) stent during kidney transplantation using the Lich-Gregoir technique. Quality of life was evaluated with the USSQ 7-10 d postoperation. sDJs stents were removed cystoscopically by a urologist while mDJ stents were removed bedside by a transplant surgeon. The duration of removal and procedure-associated pain were documented. Questionnaires for physicians and patients were used to assess peri-interventional experience and issues. Additionally, costs associated with the removal of both stents were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Quality of life showed no differences between the groups. Stent removal was successful in all cases, with no differences in duration of removal (<i>P</i> = 0.24) or major issues. Patients reported comparable pain levels during the removal of mDJs (<i>P</i> = 0.55) and higher satisfaction, although this was not statistically significant (<i>P</i> = 0.27). Cost analysis revealed a reduction of approximately €172 with the use of mDJ.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of mDJ stents in kidney transplantation is a safe alternative associated with comparable pain during removal. Additionally, it offers cost savings and reduces the logistical burden for both patients and hospitals.</p>","PeriodicalId":23225,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation Direct","volume":"11 4","pages":"e1773"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11896100/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation Direct","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000001773","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TRANSPLANTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: This monocentric, randomized controlled trial aims to compare the outcomes of kidney transplant recipients with magnetic double-J (DJ) stents versus conventional DJ stents. Specifically, we assessed stent-related symptoms, procedural difficulties, pain and duration of removal, and associated costs.
Methods: A total of 30 patients were randomly assigned to receive either a magnetic DJ (mDJ) stent or a conventional, standard DJ (sDJ) stent during kidney transplantation using the Lich-Gregoir technique. Quality of life was evaluated with the USSQ 7-10 d postoperation. sDJs stents were removed cystoscopically by a urologist while mDJ stents were removed bedside by a transplant surgeon. The duration of removal and procedure-associated pain were documented. Questionnaires for physicians and patients were used to assess peri-interventional experience and issues. Additionally, costs associated with the removal of both stents were analyzed.
Results: Quality of life showed no differences between the groups. Stent removal was successful in all cases, with no differences in duration of removal (P = 0.24) or major issues. Patients reported comparable pain levels during the removal of mDJs (P = 0.55) and higher satisfaction, although this was not statistically significant (P = 0.27). Cost analysis revealed a reduction of approximately €172 with the use of mDJ.
Conclusions: The use of mDJ stents in kidney transplantation is a safe alternative associated with comparable pain during removal. Additionally, it offers cost savings and reduces the logistical burden for both patients and hospitals.