Journals / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2019 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 6

Can magnitip double-J stent serve as a substitute for a standard double-J stent?

Pages
437–443
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, the removal of the magnetic DJ was less costly than the standard DJ.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate the morbidity of the magnitip double-J stent (DJ), compare its morbidity to the standard stent, and evaluate the possibility of retrieving the magnetic tip of the DJ stent without cystos - copy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and methods: A total of 50 patients having a lower ureteric stone, who underwent uretroscopic stone retrieval and required the use of a DJ, were randomly assigned to 2 groups, each containing 25 pa - tients.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, the removal of the magnetic DJ was less costly than the standard DJ.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the morbidity of the magnitip double-J stent (DJ), compare its morbidity to the standard stent, and evaluate the possibility of retrieving the magnetic tip of the DJ stent without cystos - copy. Material and methods: A total of 50 patients having a lower ureteric stone, who underwent uretroscopic stone retrieval and required the use of a DJ, were randomly assigned to 2 groups, each containing 25 pa - tients. Patients in group A were subjected to exploration with a uretroscope and a magnitip DJ while those in group B received a uretroscope and a standard DJ. The morbidity of both types of DJs was assessed by the Arabic version of the ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ). Results: There was a high level of statistically significant differences between the two groups with re - gards to the total score of the USSQ, which were higher in group A as compared to group B (126.96±14.76 vs. 98.24±12.9) (p=0.001). Further, the cost of the total procedure was significantly higher in group B (9600±1456.59 vs. 8444±783.73) (p=0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between both groups regarding the application, retrieval accuracy, and discomfort caused by DJ removal. Conclusion: The morbidity caused by the magnetic DJ was found to be higher. However, the removal of the magnetic DJ was less costly than the standard DJ.

🔖

Cite This Article

Farouk, A., Abuftira, A. A., Maged, W. A., Tawfick, A., Hasan, M. (2022). Can magnitip double-J stent serve as a substitute for a standard double-J stent?. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 6, 437–443. https://ajindex.com/articles/614368

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Finney RP. Experience with new double-J ureteral catheter stent. J Urol 1978;120:678. [CrossRef]. 2 Chew BH, Knudsen BE, Denstedt JD. The use of stents in contem- porary urology. Curr Opin Urol 2004;14:111‐5. [CrossRef] 3. Milicevic S, Bijelic R, Jakovljevic B. Encrustation of the Ureteral Double J Stent in Patients with a Solitary FunctionalKidney-a Case Report. Med Arch 2015;69:265-8. [CrossRef] 4. Taylor WN, McDougall IT. Minimally invasive ureteral stent re- trieval. J Urol 2002;168:2020-3. [CrossRef] 5. Macaluso JN, Jr., Deutsch JS, Goodman JR, Appell RA, Prats LJ, Jr., Wahl P. The use of the Magnetip double‐J ureteral stent in uro- logical practice. J Urol 1989;142:701‐3. [CrossRef] 6. El-Nahas AR, Elsaadanya MM, Tharwata M, Mosbaha A, Metwal- lya AH, Hawaryb A, et al. Validation of the Arabic linguistic ver- sion of the Ureteral Stent Symptoms Questionnaire. Arab J Urol 2014;12:290-3. [CrossRef] 7. Hepperlen TW, Mardis HK, Kammandel H. Self‐retained internal ureteral stents: a new approach. J Urol 1978;119:731‐4. [CrossRef] 8. Beiko D, Knudsen B, Denstedt JD. Advances in Ureteral Stent Design: Reviews in Endourology. J Endourol 2003; 17:195-9.[CrossRef] 9. Schulman CC, Wildschutz T, Zlotta AR. Single-J ureteral stent with a distal suture. In: Stenting the Urinary System. 1998. Ed - ited by D. Yachia. Oxford: Isis Medical Media, chapt. 20, pp. 161-4. 10. Mykulak DJ, Herskowitz M, Glassberg KI. Use of magnetic in- ternal ureteral stents in pediatric urology: Retrieval without rou- tine requirement for cystoscopy and general anesthesia. J Urol 1994;152:976-7. [CrossRef] 11. Rassweiler MC, Michel MS, Ritter M, Honeck P. Magnetic ure- teral stent removal without cystoscopy ‐ a randomised controlled trial. J Endourol 2017;31:762-6. [CrossRef] 12. Auge BK, Ferraro RF, Madenjian AR, Preminger GM. Evaluation of a dissolvable ureteral drainage stent in a swine model. J Urol 2002;168:808-12. [CrossRef] 13. Barros AA, Rita A, Duarte C, Pires RA, Sampaio‐Marques B, Ludovico P, et al. Bioresorbable ureteral stents from natu- ral origin polymers. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2015;103:608‐17. [CrossRef] 14. Lingeman JE, Preminger GM, Segura JW, Denstedt JD, Goldstone L, Segura JW, et al. Use of a temporary ureteral drainage stent (TUDS) after uncomplicated ureteroscopy. J Urol 2003;169:1682- 8. [CrossRef]