Liu Hao, Pan Weiyun, Zhang Nan
Department of Urology. The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang, China.
Department of Ultrasonic. Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Zhejiang, China.
Urol J. 2018 Nov 17;15(6):329-332. doi: 10.22037/uj.v0i0.4469.
Some urologists used the extraction strings for removal of ureteral stent without cystoscopy. While some urologists may have concern about perceived risks, including accidental dislodgement, infection, renal?colic?and lower urinary tract symptoms. Therefore, we performed a retrospective study to help address this conflict.
Patients who had an indwelling ureteral stent with(n=58) or without(n=82) extraction strings inserted after ureteroscopy for unilateral ureteral stones were enrolled. For ureteral stent removal, the strings were pulled by physician, no string-stents were removed by cystoscopic. Postoperative morbidity was assessed. Patients' medical expense due to postoperative morbidity was collected.
Patients with extraction string had shorter stent dwell time((5.3±1.8 versus 11.2±3.2 day, P= .001) and less cost (8.97±3.07 versus 455±0 CNY, P = .001)) for ureteral stent removal. However, six patients with extraction string had an accidental dislodgement, additional medical expenses were 345±137.9 CNY. There was no difference in the cost due to urinary tract infection, renal?colic?and LUTS between the two groups. The overall cost in patients without an extraction string was significantly more than in patients with an extraction string (86.7±167.7 versus 507.9±147.8 CNY, p =.008).
Despite an increase in stent dislodgement related risks to the extraction string, it results in significant cost savings for patients, and most of patients remove with extraction strings might benefit from it. INTRODUCTION Nowadays, most of urologists place an indwelling ureteral stent following uncomplicated ureteroscopy(URS). However, ureteral stent may impact quality of life (QoL) of patients. And the additional suffering due to cystoscopic extraction is even more painful. Current ureteral stents are manufactured with a string attached to the distal end, allowing for removal without cystoscopy, which may lead to a reduction of the dwell time(usually less than one week)[1-8]. Although stent extraction strings have many advantages, more than two-thirds of urologists remove extraction strings prior to their insertion[9]. Surgeons who do not adopt?this?method?may have concern about perceived risks, including accidental dislodgement, infection, renal?colic?and lower urinary tract symptoms(LUTS). But how about incidence?rate of the risk aforementioned??does this increase the patient's financial burden compared with patients remove without extraction strings? Whether patients remove with extraction strings might benefit from it? Therefore, we performed a retrospective study to help address these questions by comparing patients those who underwent ureteric stent placement with and without extraction strings after URS for stone disease.
一些泌尿科医生使用取出线在不进行膀胱镜检查的情况下取出输尿管支架。然而,一些泌尿科医生可能担心存在包括意外移位、感染、肾绞痛和下尿路症状等潜在风险。因此,我们进行了一项回顾性研究以解决这一争议。
纳入输尿管镜检查后因单侧输尿管结石插入有(n = 58)或无(n = 82)取出线的留置输尿管支架的患者。对于输尿管支架取出,由医生牵拉取出线,不通过膀胱镜取出带线支架。评估术后发病率。收集因术后发病产生的患者医疗费用。
有取出线的患者输尿管支架取出的支架留置时间较短((5.3±1.8天对11.2±3.2天,P = .001))且费用较低(8.97±3.07元对455±0元人民币,P = .001))。然而,6例有取出线的患者出现意外移位,额外医疗费用为345±137.9元人民币。两组在因尿路感染、肾绞痛和下尿路症状产生的费用方面无差异。无取出线患者的总体费用显著高于有取出线的患者(86.7±167.7元对507.9±147.8元人民币,p =.008)。
尽管取出线会增加支架移位相关风险,但它为患者节省了大量费用,且大多数使用取出线取出支架的患者可能从中受益。引言如今,大多数泌尿科医生在无并发症的输尿管镜检查(URS)后放置留置输尿管支架。然而,输尿管支架可能会影响患者的生活质量(QoL)。而且膀胱镜取出带来的额外痛苦更加难受。目前的输尿管支架在远端附有一根线,可在不进行膀胱镜检查的情况下取出,这可能会缩短留置时间(通常少于一周)[1 - 8]。尽管支架取出线有许多优点,但超过三分之二的泌尿科医生在插入前会移除取出线[9]。不采用这种方法的外科医生可能担心存在包括意外移位、感染、肾绞痛和下尿路症状(LUTS)等潜在风险。但上述风险的发生率如何?与不使用取出线取出支架的患者相比,这是否会增加患者的经济负担?使用取出线取出支架的患者是否可能从中受益?因此,我们进行了一项回顾性研究,通过比较URS治疗结石病后放置有和无取出线输尿管支架的患者来回答这些问题。