Ureteric stenting vs not stenting following uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy: A prospective randomised trial
To compare three groups of patients who underwent uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and to evaluate whether stenting could be eliminated after the procedure, as there is no consensus about whether a ureteric stent should be placed after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone retrieval. In...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Arab Journal of Urology 2020-07, Vol.18 (3), p.169-175 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 175 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 169 |
| container_title | Arab Journal of Urology |
| container_volume | 18 |
| creator | Al Demour, Saddam Alrabadi, Adel AlSharif, Abedallatif Ababneh, Mera Al-Taher, Raed Melhem, Motaz Mansi, Hammam Aljamal, Sa'id Abufaraj, Mohammad |
| description | To compare three groups of patients who underwent uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and to evaluate whether stenting could be eliminated after the procedure, as there is no consensus about whether a ureteric stent should be placed after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone retrieval.
In this randomised clinical trial (NCT04145063) 105 patients underwent uncomplicated URSL for ureteric stones. They were prospectively randomised into three groups: Group 1 (34 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent, Group 2 (35 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string, and Group 3 (36 patients) with no ureteric stent placed after the procedure. The outcomes measured were: postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score for flank pain and dysuria score, urgency, frequency, suprapubic pain, haematuria, analgesia requirement, operative time, re-hospitalisation, and return to normal physical activity.
The mean (SD) operative time was significantly longer in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3, at 22.2 (9.1), 20.2 (6) and 15.1 (7.1) min, respectively ( |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1080/2090598X.2020.1762280 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7473245</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>33029427</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-dd2f25cd91bc6290c08eb44505187c45e6e69f4819d928f9c086b42b15f977eb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkV1LwzAUhoMobsz9BKV_oPM0TdrEC2EMv2DgjQPvQpumW6BtSpJN_Pem7sN5lZPz5nnDOS9CtwnMEmBwj4ED5exzhgGHVp5hzOACjYd-PAiXZ_UITZ3TJRCSpwAsu0ajNAXMCc7HyK2s8spqGTmvOq-7dbRzUWf83702TWO-hmrbSdP2jZaFV1W0_SWNk6YPeKP9xnire_f9EM2jPgi9kl7vVGSLrjKtdoEJD4rmBl3VRePU9HBO0Or56WPxGi_fX94W82UsScZ8XFW4xlRWPCllhjlIYKokhAJNWC4JVZnKeE1YwiuOWc2DnpUElwmteZ6rMp2gx71vvy1bVckwjy0a0VvdFvZbmEKL_0qnN2JtdiIPm8KEBgO6N5BhGmdVfWITEEMQ4hiEGIIQhyACd3f-8Yk6rj39AaDUiPI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ureteric stenting vs not stenting following uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy: A prospective randomised trial</title><source>Taylor & Francis Open Access</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Al Demour, Saddam ; Alrabadi, Adel ; AlSharif, Abedallatif ; Ababneh, Mera ; Al-Taher, Raed ; Melhem, Motaz ; Mansi, Hammam ; Aljamal, Sa'id ; Abufaraj, Mohammad</creator><creatorcontrib>Al Demour, Saddam ; Alrabadi, Adel ; AlSharif, Abedallatif ; Ababneh, Mera ; Al-Taher, Raed ; Melhem, Motaz ; Mansi, Hammam ; Aljamal, Sa'id ; Abufaraj, Mohammad</creatorcontrib><description>To compare three groups of patients who underwent uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and to evaluate whether stenting could be eliminated after the procedure, as there is no consensus about whether a ureteric stent should be placed after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone retrieval.
In this randomised clinical trial (NCT04145063) 105 patients underwent uncomplicated URSL for ureteric stones. They were prospectively randomised into three groups: Group 1 (34 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent, Group 2 (35 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string, and Group 3 (36 patients) with no ureteric stent placed after the procedure. The outcomes measured were: postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score for flank pain and dysuria score, urgency, frequency, suprapubic pain, haematuria, analgesia requirement, operative time, re-hospitalisation, and return to normal physical activity.
The mean (SD) operative time was significantly longer in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3, at 22.2 (9.1), 20.2 (6) and 15.1 (7.1) min, respectively (
< 0.001). The results of the VAS for flank pain and dysuria scores, urgency, frequency, haematuria, and suprapubic pain showed a significant difference at all time-points of follow-up, being significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3 (all
< 0.001). Further analysis showed that measured outcomes, and analgesia need for groups 1 and 2 were similar, at all time-points except at week 1 and 1 month where Group 2 patients' had less symptoms (
< 0.001).
Double pigtail ureteric stent placement appears to be unnecessary in procedures considered 'uncomplicated' by operating urologists during surgery. The advantages of the double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string over the double pigtail ureteric stent only include earlier and easier removal with earlier relief of symptoms, and less analgesia requirements.
KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; URSL: ureteroscopic lithotripsy; VAS: visual analogue scale.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2090-598X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2090-598X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2090-5998</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2020.1762280</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33029427</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Taylor & Francis</publisher><subject>Stones/Endourology</subject><ispartof>Arab Journal of Urology, 2020-07, Vol.18 (3), p.169-175</ispartof><rights>2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.</rights><rights>2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. 2020 The Author(s)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-dd2f25cd91bc6290c08eb44505187c45e6e69f4819d928f9c086b42b15f977eb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-dd2f25cd91bc6290c08eb44505187c45e6e69f4819d928f9c086b42b15f977eb3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4044-0927 ; 0000-0002-6603-6319</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7473245/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7473245/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,861,882,27905,27906,53772,53774</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33029427$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Al Demour, Saddam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alrabadi, Adel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>AlSharif, Abedallatif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ababneh, Mera</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Al-Taher, Raed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melhem, Motaz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mansi, Hammam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aljamal, Sa'id</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abufaraj, Mohammad</creatorcontrib><title>Ureteric stenting vs not stenting following uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy: A prospective randomised trial</title><title>Arab Journal of Urology</title><addtitle>Arab J Urol</addtitle><description>To compare three groups of patients who underwent uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and to evaluate whether stenting could be eliminated after the procedure, as there is no consensus about whether a ureteric stent should be placed after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone retrieval.
In this randomised clinical trial (NCT04145063) 105 patients underwent uncomplicated URSL for ureteric stones. They were prospectively randomised into three groups: Group 1 (34 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent, Group 2 (35 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string, and Group 3 (36 patients) with no ureteric stent placed after the procedure. The outcomes measured were: postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score for flank pain and dysuria score, urgency, frequency, suprapubic pain, haematuria, analgesia requirement, operative time, re-hospitalisation, and return to normal physical activity.
The mean (SD) operative time was significantly longer in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3, at 22.2 (9.1), 20.2 (6) and 15.1 (7.1) min, respectively (
< 0.001). The results of the VAS for flank pain and dysuria scores, urgency, frequency, haematuria, and suprapubic pain showed a significant difference at all time-points of follow-up, being significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3 (all
< 0.001). Further analysis showed that measured outcomes, and analgesia need for groups 1 and 2 were similar, at all time-points except at week 1 and 1 month where Group 2 patients' had less symptoms (
< 0.001).
Double pigtail ureteric stent placement appears to be unnecessary in procedures considered 'uncomplicated' by operating urologists during surgery. The advantages of the double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string over the double pigtail ureteric stent only include earlier and easier removal with earlier relief of symptoms, and less analgesia requirements.
KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; URSL: ureteroscopic lithotripsy; VAS: visual analogue scale.</description><subject>Stones/Endourology</subject><issn>2090-598X</issn><issn>2090-598X</issn><issn>2090-5998</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVkV1LwzAUhoMobsz9BKV_oPM0TdrEC2EMv2DgjQPvQpumW6BtSpJN_Pem7sN5lZPz5nnDOS9CtwnMEmBwj4ED5exzhgGHVp5hzOACjYd-PAiXZ_UITZ3TJRCSpwAsu0ajNAXMCc7HyK2s8spqGTmvOq-7dbRzUWf83702TWO-hmrbSdP2jZaFV1W0_SWNk6YPeKP9xnire_f9EM2jPgi9kl7vVGSLrjKtdoEJD4rmBl3VRePU9HBO0Or56WPxGi_fX94W82UsScZ8XFW4xlRWPCllhjlIYKokhAJNWC4JVZnKeE1YwiuOWc2DnpUElwmteZ6rMp2gx71vvy1bVckwjy0a0VvdFvZbmEKL_0qnN2JtdiIPm8KEBgO6N5BhGmdVfWITEEMQ4hiEGIIQhyACd3f-8Yk6rj39AaDUiPI</recordid><startdate>20200702</startdate><enddate>20200702</enddate><creator>Al Demour, Saddam</creator><creator>Alrabadi, Adel</creator><creator>AlSharif, Abedallatif</creator><creator>Ababneh, Mera</creator><creator>Al-Taher, Raed</creator><creator>Melhem, Motaz</creator><creator>Mansi, Hammam</creator><creator>Aljamal, Sa'id</creator><creator>Abufaraj, Mohammad</creator><general>Taylor & Francis</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4044-0927</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6603-6319</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200702</creationdate><title>Ureteric stenting vs not stenting following uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy: A prospective randomised trial</title><author>Al Demour, Saddam ; Alrabadi, Adel ; AlSharif, Abedallatif ; Ababneh, Mera ; Al-Taher, Raed ; Melhem, Motaz ; Mansi, Hammam ; Aljamal, Sa'id ; Abufaraj, Mohammad</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-dd2f25cd91bc6290c08eb44505187c45e6e69f4819d928f9c086b42b15f977eb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Stones/Endourology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Al Demour, Saddam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alrabadi, Adel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>AlSharif, Abedallatif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ababneh, Mera</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Al-Taher, Raed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melhem, Motaz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mansi, Hammam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aljamal, Sa'id</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abufaraj, Mohammad</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Arab Journal of Urology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Al Demour, Saddam</au><au>Alrabadi, Adel</au><au>AlSharif, Abedallatif</au><au>Ababneh, Mera</au><au>Al-Taher, Raed</au><au>Melhem, Motaz</au><au>Mansi, Hammam</au><au>Aljamal, Sa'id</au><au>Abufaraj, Mohammad</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ureteric stenting vs not stenting following uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy: A prospective randomised trial</atitle><jtitle>Arab Journal of Urology</jtitle><addtitle>Arab J Urol</addtitle><date>2020-07-02</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>169</spage><epage>175</epage><pages>169-175</pages><issn>2090-598X</issn><eissn>2090-598X</eissn><eissn>2090-5998</eissn><abstract>To compare three groups of patients who underwent uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and to evaluate whether stenting could be eliminated after the procedure, as there is no consensus about whether a ureteric stent should be placed after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone retrieval.
In this randomised clinical trial (NCT04145063) 105 patients underwent uncomplicated URSL for ureteric stones. They were prospectively randomised into three groups: Group 1 (34 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent, Group 2 (35 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string, and Group 3 (36 patients) with no ureteric stent placed after the procedure. The outcomes measured were: postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score for flank pain and dysuria score, urgency, frequency, suprapubic pain, haematuria, analgesia requirement, operative time, re-hospitalisation, and return to normal physical activity.
The mean (SD) operative time was significantly longer in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3, at 22.2 (9.1), 20.2 (6) and 15.1 (7.1) min, respectively (
< 0.001). The results of the VAS for flank pain and dysuria scores, urgency, frequency, haematuria, and suprapubic pain showed a significant difference at all time-points of follow-up, being significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3 (all
< 0.001). Further analysis showed that measured outcomes, and analgesia need for groups 1 and 2 were similar, at all time-points except at week 1 and 1 month where Group 2 patients' had less symptoms (
< 0.001).
Double pigtail ureteric stent placement appears to be unnecessary in procedures considered 'uncomplicated' by operating urologists during surgery. The advantages of the double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string over the double pigtail ureteric stent only include earlier and easier removal with earlier relief of symptoms, and less analgesia requirements.
KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; URSL: ureteroscopic lithotripsy; VAS: visual analogue scale.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Taylor & Francis</pub><pmid>33029427</pmid><doi>10.1080/2090598X.2020.1762280</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4044-0927</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6603-6319</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2090-598X |
| ispartof | Arab Journal of Urology, 2020-07, Vol.18 (3), p.169-175 |
| issn | 2090-598X 2090-598X 2090-5998 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7473245 |
| source | Taylor & Francis Open Access; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Stones/Endourology |
| title | Ureteric stenting vs not stenting following uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy: A prospective randomised trial |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T18%3A42%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ureteric%20stenting%20vs%20not%20stenting%20following%20uncomplicated%20ureteroscopic%20lithotripsy:%20A%20prospective%20randomised%20trial&rft.jtitle=Arab%20Journal%20of%20Urology&rft.au=Al%20Demour,%20Saddam&rft.date=2020-07-02&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=169&rft.epage=175&rft.pages=169-175&rft.issn=2090-598X&rft.eissn=2090-598X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/2090598X.2020.1762280&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_cross%3E33029427%3C/pubmed_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/33029427&rfr_iscdi=true |