Suppr超能文献

磁性双J支架能替代标准双J支架吗?

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

作者信息

Farouk Ahmed, Tawfick Ahmed, Hasan Mohamed, Abuftira Abdulwahab A, Maged Wael A

机构信息

Department of Urology, Ain Shams University Faculty of Medicine, Cairo, Egypt.

出版信息

Turk J Urol. 2019 Nov 1;45(6):437-443. doi: 10.5152/tud.2019.19038. Print 2019 Nov.

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 cystoscopy.

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 patients. 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 regards 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.

摘要

目的

评估磁性双J支架(DJ)的发病率,将其发病率与标准支架进行比较,并评估在无膀胱镜检查的情况下取出DJ支架磁性尖端的可能性。

材料与方法

共有50例患有输尿管下段结石的患者,他们接受了输尿管镜取石术且需要使用DJ支架,被随机分为2组,每组25例。A组患者使用输尿管镜和磁性DJ支架进行探查,而B组患者接受输尿管镜和标准DJ支架。两种类型DJ支架的发病率通过输尿管支架症状问卷(USSQ)阿拉伯语版进行评估。

结果

两组在USSQ总分方面存在高度统计学显著差异,A组高于B组(126.96±14.76对98.24±12.9)(p=0.001)。此外,B组的总手术费用显著更高(9600±1456.59对8444±783.73)(p=0.001)。两组在DJ支架的应用、取出准确性以及取出时的不适感方面未发现统计学显著差异。

结论

发现磁性DJ支架引起的发病率更高。然而,取出磁性DJ支架的成本低于标准DJ支架。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

4
Bioresorbable ureteral stents from natural origin polymers.源自天然聚合物的生物可吸收输尿管支架。
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2015 Apr;103(3):608-17. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.33237. Epub 2014 Jun 26.
5
The use of stents in contemporary urology.当代泌尿外科中支架的应用。
Curr Opin Urol. 2004 Mar;14(2):111-5. doi: 10.1097/00042307-200403000-00011.
6
Advances in ureteral stent design.输尿管支架设计的进展。
J Endourol. 2003 May;17(4):195-9. doi: 10.1089/089277903765444294.
8
Minimally invasive ureteral stent retrieval.微创输尿管支架取出术。
J Urol. 2002 Nov;168(5):2020-3. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64286-3.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验