Comparison of Magnetic and Conventional Double-J Stent Following Kidney Transplantation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 1.9 Q3 TRANSPLANTATION Transplantation Direct Pub Date : 2025-03-10 eCollection Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.1097/TXD.0000000000001773
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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
肾移植后磁性与常规双j型支架的比较:一项随机对照试验。
背景:这项单中心随机对照试验旨在比较磁性双j (DJ)支架与传统DJ支架肾移植受者的预后。具体来说,我们评估了支架相关症状、手术困难、疼痛和移除持续时间以及相关费用。方法:在采用Lich-Gregoir技术进行肾移植时,共30例患者被随机分配接受磁性DJ (mDJ)支架或常规标准DJ (sDJ)支架。术后7 ~ 10 d用USSQ评价生活质量。sdj支架由泌尿科医生在膀胱镜下取出,mDJ支架由移植外科医生在床边取出。记录手术时间和手术相关疼痛。对医生和患者进行问卷调查,以评估围介入期的经验和问题。此外,还分析了移除两种支架的相关费用。结果:两组患者的生活质量无明显差异。所有病例均成功取出支架,在取出时间(P = 0.24)或主要问题上无差异。患者报告在取出mDJs期间疼痛水平相当(P = 0.55),满意度更高,尽管这没有统计学意义(P = 0.27)。成本分析显示,使用mDJ减少了大约172欧元。结论:在肾移植中使用mDJ支架是一种安全的替代方法,并且移除过程中疼痛相当。此外,它还可以节省成本,减轻患者和医院的后勤负担。
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
Transplantation Direct
Transplantation Direct TRANSPLANTATION-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
193
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Portal Vein Thrombectomy in Liver Transplantation for Patients With Calcified Portal Vein Thrombosis: An Extensive Case Series. Donor and Procedural Factors on Early Dialysis Trends After Lung Transplantation in the United States. Back-to-base Versus In-transit Machine Perfusion in Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation: Insights From a National Registry. BEAT-BK: An Adaptive, Randomized Controlled Trial to Treat Polyomavirus Infections (BKPyV) in Kidney and Kidney-pancreas Transplantation Recipients (BEAT-BK) Study Protocol. Evaluation of IVIG for Prevention of Infections Occurring On-study and Treatment of Infection of Solid Organ Recipients With Secondary Antibody Deficiency: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.
×
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:604180095
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