Comparison of Percutaneous Antegrade Double-J Ureteral Stent Placement: First-Hand vs. Nephrostomy Route Approaches
This study aimed to conduct a comparative analysis of procedural efficacy, safety, and patient outcomes between 2 distinct approaches for percutaneous antegrade double-J ureteral stent (DJS) insertion: the first-hand approach and via a nephrostomy route.OBJECTIVEThis study aimed to conduct a compara...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of radiology 2024-10, Vol.97 (1162), p.1683-1689 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | This study aimed to conduct a comparative analysis of procedural efficacy, safety, and patient outcomes between 2 distinct approaches for percutaneous antegrade double-J ureteral stent (DJS) insertion: the first-hand approach and via a nephrostomy route.OBJECTIVEThis study aimed to conduct a comparative analysis of procedural efficacy, safety, and patient outcomes between 2 distinct approaches for percutaneous antegrade double-J ureteral stent (DJS) insertion: the first-hand approach and via a nephrostomy route.Electronic records of patients undergoing percutaneous antegrade ureteral DJS placement from January 2016 to 2023 were reviewed. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on stent placement technique: the first-hand group, involving a single-stage approach without prior percutaneous nephrostomy catheter insertion, and the nephrostomy group, where stent placement occurred through a percutaneous nephrostomy tube. Clinical data, including patient demographics, primary diagnoses, procedural details, complication rates, stent placement success, and post-procedural outcomes, were collected and analysed.METHODSElectronic records of patients undergoing percutaneous antegrade ureteral DJS placement from January 2016 to 2023 were reviewed. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on stent placement technique: the first-hand group, involving a single-stage approach without prior percutaneous nephrostomy catheter insertion, and the nephrostomy group, where stent placement occurred through a percutaneous nephrostomy tube. Clinical data, including patient demographics, primary diagnoses, procedural details, complication rates, stent placement success, and post-procedural outcomes, were collected and analysed.Both approaches demonstrated high technical success rates (93.1%). However, the nephrostomy route group exhibited a comparatively higher fluoroscopy exposure rate (8.2 min) than the first-hand group (6.8 min). Moreover, the complication risk increased by 3.08 times in patients treated with the nephrostomy method (P = .047). Notably, in cases of urinary malignancies, the preference was for placing DJS via nephrostomy.RESULTSBoth approaches demonstrated high technical success rates (93.1%). However, the nephrostomy route group exhibited a comparatively higher fluoroscopy exposure rate (8.2 min) than the first-hand group (6.8 min). Moreover, the complication risk increased by 3.08 times in patients treated with the nephrostomy method (P = .047). Notably |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0007-1285 1748-880X 1748-880X |
DOI: | 10.1093/bjr/tqae143 |