The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better?
Objective. To evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ureteric stent removal using strings compared to conventional methods. Materials and Methods. The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Cochrane Library were systemat...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BioMed research international 2020, Vol.2020 (2020), p.1-10 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 10 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2020 |
| container_start_page | 1 |
| container_title | BioMed research international |
| container_volume | 2020 |
| creator | Geng, Lin Huang, Tao Zhao, Hang Jiao, Binbin Luo, Zhenkai Zhang, Guan |
| description | Objective. To evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ureteric stent removal using strings compared to conventional methods. Materials and Methods. The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to March 2020. Two reviewers searched the literature, independently extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data analysis was performed with the software program Review Manager 5.3. Results. Eleven studies with a total of 1809 patients were included in the analysis based on the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis showed that visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were significantly lower in the string group than in the conventional group (weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.68, -1.58; P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1155/2020/4081409 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7584935</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A697139922</galeid><sourcerecordid>A697139922</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-50c661c30228bded59c31b856176d5a6bdd0c99b05e0c1018e5a62daf0c472fd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNks9rFDEUxwdRbKm9eZaAF8Guze-ZeKjUUrVQFGyLx5BJXnZSZic1md2y_30z7Harnswl4ZtPvu89vqmq1wR_IESIY4opPua4IRyrZ9U-ZYTPJOHk-e7M2F51mPMtLqshEiv5stpjjFAmar5ftdcdoHPvgzV2jczg0JXxMK5R9OgmwQgpWHQ1wjCin7CIK9Oj-zB2RUphmGe0gpSXGX2Pj8pH9KsLtkMXGX2Gsbz_9Kp64U2f4XC7H1Q3X86vz77NLn98vTg7vZxZrtQ4E9hKSSzDlDatAyeUZaRthCS1dMLI1jlslWqxAGwJJg0UkTrjseU19Y4dVCcb37tluwBnS8_J9PouhYVJax1N0H_fDKHT87jStWi4YqIYvNsapPh7CXnUi5At9L0ZIC6zplxITjBVE_r2H_Q2LtNQxpsoTmRTc_xEzU0POgw-lrp2MtWnUtWEKUVpoY42lE0x5wR-1zLBekpZTynrbcoFf_PnmDv4MdMCvN8AXRicuQ__aQeFAW-e6PJ1ZEPYA4kzts8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2454168740</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Geng, Lin ; Huang, Tao ; Zhao, Hang ; Jiao, Binbin ; Luo, Zhenkai ; Zhang, Guan</creator><contributor>Ecke, Thorsten ; Thorsten Ecke</contributor><creatorcontrib>Geng, Lin ; Huang, Tao ; Zhao, Hang ; Jiao, Binbin ; Luo, Zhenkai ; Zhang, Guan ; Ecke, Thorsten ; Thorsten Ecke</creatorcontrib><description>Objective. To evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ureteric stent removal using strings compared to conventional methods. Materials and Methods. The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to March 2020. Two reviewers searched the literature, independently extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data analysis was performed with the software program Review Manager 5.3. Results. Eleven studies with a total of 1809 patients were included in the analysis based on the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis showed that visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were significantly lower in the string group than in the conventional group (weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.68, -1.58; P<0.00001). In terms of stent dwell time, the string group had an advantage (WMD -9.53; 95% CI -14.20, -4.86; P<0.0001). In addition, no significant differences in the occurrence of urinary tract infection (UTI) (odds ratio (OR) 1.03; 95% CI 0.62, 1.72; P=0.92), emergency room visits (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.59, 1.67; P=0.97), or other complications (P>0.05) were observed between the two groups. Conclusion. Our findings suggest that an extraction string is an effective and safe method for the removal of ureteric stents. This method gives patients the benefits of reduced pain and shortened stent dwell time without increasing the risk of UTI. Nevertheless, these findings should be further confirmed through large-volume, well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</description><identifier>ISSN: 2314-6133</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2314-6141</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1155/2020/4081409</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33123574</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cairo, Egypt: Hindawi Publishing Corporation</publisher><subject>Case-Control Studies ; Clinical trials ; Complications ; Confidence intervals ; Data analysis ; Device Removal - adverse effects ; Dwell time ; Emergency medical care ; Emergency medical services ; Health aspects ; Humans ; Implants ; Meta-analysis ; Methods ; Pain ; Patient outcomes ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Review ; Safety ; Software ; Stent (Surgery) ; Stents ; Stents - adverse effects ; Strings ; Ureter ; Ureter - surgery ; Ureteral stents ; Ureters ; Urinary tract ; Urinary tract diseases ; Urinary tract infections ; Urogenital system ; Urology</subject><ispartof>BioMed research international, 2020, Vol.2020 (2020), p.1-10</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2020 Zhenkai Luo et al.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Zhenkai Luo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Zhenkai Luo et al. 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-50c661c30228bded59c31b856176d5a6bdd0c99b05e0c1018e5a62daf0c472fd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-50c661c30228bded59c31b856176d5a6bdd0c99b05e0c1018e5a62daf0c472fd3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5942-2481</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/PMC7584935/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7584935/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,4024,27923,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33123574$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Ecke, Thorsten</contributor><contributor>Thorsten Ecke</contributor><creatorcontrib>Geng, Lin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Tao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Hang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiao, Binbin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luo, Zhenkai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Guan</creatorcontrib><title>The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better?</title><title>BioMed research international</title><addtitle>Biomed Res Int</addtitle><description>Objective. To evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ureteric stent removal using strings compared to conventional methods. Materials and Methods. The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to March 2020. Two reviewers searched the literature, independently extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data analysis was performed with the software program Review Manager 5.3. Results. Eleven studies with a total of 1809 patients were included in the analysis based on the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis showed that visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were significantly lower in the string group than in the conventional group (weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.68, -1.58; P<0.00001). In terms of stent dwell time, the string group had an advantage (WMD -9.53; 95% CI -14.20, -4.86; P<0.0001). In addition, no significant differences in the occurrence of urinary tract infection (UTI) (odds ratio (OR) 1.03; 95% CI 0.62, 1.72; P=0.92), emergency room visits (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.59, 1.67; P=0.97), or other complications (P>0.05) were observed between the two groups. Conclusion. Our findings suggest that an extraction string is an effective and safe method for the removal of ureteric stents. This method gives patients the benefits of reduced pain and shortened stent dwell time without increasing the risk of UTI. Nevertheless, these findings should be further confirmed through large-volume, well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</description><subject>Case-Control Studies</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Device Removal - adverse effects</subject><subject>Dwell time</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Emergency medical services</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Implants</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Stent (Surgery)</subject><subject>Stents</subject><subject>Stents - adverse effects</subject><subject>Strings</subject><subject>Ureter</subject><subject>Ureter - surgery</subject><subject>Ureteral stents</subject><subject>Ureters</subject><subject>Urinary tract</subject><subject>Urinary tract diseases</subject><subject>Urinary tract infections</subject><subject>Urogenital system</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>2314-6133</issn><issn>2314-6141</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>RHX</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNks9rFDEUxwdRbKm9eZaAF8Guze-ZeKjUUrVQFGyLx5BJXnZSZic1md2y_30z7Harnswl4ZtPvu89vqmq1wR_IESIY4opPua4IRyrZ9U-ZYTPJOHk-e7M2F51mPMtLqshEiv5stpjjFAmar5ftdcdoHPvgzV2jczg0JXxMK5R9OgmwQgpWHQ1wjCin7CIK9Oj-zB2RUphmGe0gpSXGX2Pj8pH9KsLtkMXGX2Gsbz_9Kp64U2f4XC7H1Q3X86vz77NLn98vTg7vZxZrtQ4E9hKSSzDlDatAyeUZaRthCS1dMLI1jlslWqxAGwJJg0UkTrjseU19Y4dVCcb37tluwBnS8_J9PouhYVJax1N0H_fDKHT87jStWi4YqIYvNsapPh7CXnUi5At9L0ZIC6zplxITjBVE_r2H_Q2LtNQxpsoTmRTc_xEzU0POgw-lrp2MtWnUtWEKUVpoY42lE0x5wR-1zLBekpZTynrbcoFf_PnmDv4MdMCvN8AXRicuQ__aQeFAW-e6PJ1ZEPYA4kzts8</recordid><startdate>2020</startdate><enddate>2020</enddate><creator>Geng, Lin</creator><creator>Huang, Tao</creator><creator>Zhao, Hang</creator><creator>Jiao, Binbin</creator><creator>Luo, Zhenkai</creator><creator>Zhang, Guan</creator><general>Hindawi Publishing Corporation</general><general>Hindawi</general><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Hindawi Limited</general><scope>ADJCN</scope><scope>AHFXO</scope><scope>RHU</scope><scope>RHW</scope><scope>RHX</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CWDGH</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5942-2481</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2020</creationdate><title>The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better?</title><author>Geng, Lin ; Huang, Tao ; Zhao, Hang ; Jiao, Binbin ; Luo, Zhenkai ; Zhang, Guan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-50c661c30228bded59c31b856176d5a6bdd0c99b05e0c1018e5a62daf0c472fd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Case-Control Studies</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Device Removal - adverse effects</topic><topic>Dwell time</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Emergency medical services</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Implants</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Stent (Surgery)</topic><topic>Stents</topic><topic>Stents - adverse effects</topic><topic>Strings</topic><topic>Ureter</topic><topic>Ureter - surgery</topic><topic>Ureteral stents</topic><topic>Ureters</topic><topic>Urinary tract</topic><topic>Urinary tract diseases</topic><topic>Urinary tract infections</topic><topic>Urogenital system</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Geng, Lin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Tao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Hang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiao, Binbin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luo, Zhenkai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Guan</creatorcontrib><collection>الدوريات العلمية والإحصائية - e-Marefa Academic and Statistical Periodicals</collection><collection>معرفة - المحتوى العربي الأكاديمي المتكامل - e-Marefa Academic Complete</collection><collection>Hindawi Publishing Complete</collection><collection>Hindawi Publishing Subscription Journals</collection><collection>Hindawi Publishing Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Middle East & Africa Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies & aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BioMed research international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Geng, Lin</au><au>Huang, Tao</au><au>Zhao, Hang</au><au>Jiao, Binbin</au><au>Luo, Zhenkai</au><au>Zhang, Guan</au><au>Ecke, Thorsten</au><au>Thorsten Ecke</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better?</atitle><jtitle>BioMed research international</jtitle><addtitle>Biomed Res Int</addtitle><date>2020</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>2020</volume><issue>2020</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>10</epage><pages>1-10</pages><issn>2314-6133</issn><eissn>2314-6141</eissn><abstract>Objective. To evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ureteric stent removal using strings compared to conventional methods. Materials and Methods. The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to March 2020. Two reviewers searched the literature, independently extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data analysis was performed with the software program Review Manager 5.3. Results. Eleven studies with a total of 1809 patients were included in the analysis based on the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis showed that visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were significantly lower in the string group than in the conventional group (weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.68, -1.58; P<0.00001). In terms of stent dwell time, the string group had an advantage (WMD -9.53; 95% CI -14.20, -4.86; P<0.0001). In addition, no significant differences in the occurrence of urinary tract infection (UTI) (odds ratio (OR) 1.03; 95% CI 0.62, 1.72; P=0.92), emergency room visits (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.59, 1.67; P=0.97), or other complications (P>0.05) were observed between the two groups. Conclusion. Our findings suggest that an extraction string is an effective and safe method for the removal of ureteric stents. This method gives patients the benefits of reduced pain and shortened stent dwell time without increasing the risk of UTI. Nevertheless, these findings should be further confirmed through large-volume, well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</abstract><cop>Cairo, Egypt</cop><pub>Hindawi Publishing Corporation</pub><pmid>33123574</pmid><doi>10.1155/2020/4081409</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5942-2481</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2314-6133 |
| ispartof | BioMed research international, 2020, Vol.2020 (2020), p.1-10 |
| issn | 2314-6133 2314-6141 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7584935 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Open Access; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; PubMed Central Open Access |
| subjects | Case-Control Studies Clinical trials Complications Confidence intervals Data analysis Device Removal - adverse effects Dwell time Emergency medical care Emergency medical services Health aspects Humans Implants Meta-analysis Methods Pain Patient outcomes Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Review Safety Software Stent (Surgery) Stents Stents - adverse effects Strings Ureter Ureter - surgery Ureteral stents Ureters Urinary tract Urinary tract diseases Urinary tract infections Urogenital system Urology |
| title | The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T07%3A18%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Efficacy%20and%20Safety%20of%20Ureteric%20Stent%20Removal%20with%20Strings%20versus%20No%20Strings:%20Which%20Is%20Better?&rft.jtitle=BioMed%20research%20international&rft.au=Geng,%20Lin&rft.date=2020&rft.volume=2020&rft.issue=2020&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=10&rft.pages=1-10&rft.issn=2314-6133&rft.eissn=2314-6141&rft_id=info:doi/10.1155/2020/4081409&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA697139922%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2454168740&rft_id=info:pmid/33123574&rft_galeid=A697139922&rfr_iscdi=true |