Novel method to decrease the exposure time of the extraction string of the ureteral stent and its efficiency and safety verification in the clinic

A retrospective comparison of Sun's tip-flexible semirigid ureterorenoscopy, super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy applied to treat upper urinary tract calculi

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of Sun's tip-flexible semirigid ureterorenoscopy (tf-URS), super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) and flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) in treating upper urinary tract calculi, including upper ureteral or renal calculi.

METHODS

We included patients with upper ureteral calculi or renal calculi 1.0-2.0 cm in size, who underwent tf-URS, SMP or FURS, respectively. The indicators reflecting safety and efficacy were compared among the three surgical techniques.

RESULTS

SMP presented with higher single stone crushing success rate, but longer operation time and postoperative hospital stay, more blood loss, and higher postoperative pain score compared with FURS and tf-URS (P < 0.05). The hospitalization cost of tf-URS group was lower than that of SMP and FURS groups (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative fever in tf-URS group was significantly higher than that in SMP group (P < 0.05). No significant difference was found in mucosal injury, perirenal hematoma, and stone-free rate at 3 months after surgery (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

tf-URS and FURS have the advantages in minimal invasion, hospitalization cost, patient comfort, and hospital stay while SMP has higher stone-free rate. These three surgical techniques are safe, reliable and complementary, which should be selected according to the actual situation.

Is Stent on a String the New Gold Standard for Postureteroscopy Ureteral Drainage? Evidence from a Systematic Review

Introduction: Ureteral stents are widely used throughout urologic surgery, most commonly following ureteroscope (URS) procedures. This systematic review aims to assess the current evidence concerning stent on string (SOS) placed after URS and compare it with stents without strings (SWOSs). Methods: A systematic review was conducted on several databases using the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) methodology for studies in English language, for patients of all age groups, who had an SOS after URS for stone disease. Results: Of 1210 records identified, a total of 22 studies (20 adult and 2 pediatric studies) were included, with a total of 8382 patients. Of these, 3427 (40.9%) had SOSs inserted and 434 (11%) were in the pediatric age group. Our results show that SOS provides several advantages, and compared with SWOS, they were in situ for less time, with no difference in complications such as urinary tract infection or urinary symptoms. Furthermore, significant cost savings, less pain on removal, and high rates of safe home removal were reported in SOS, with >90% patients reporting that they would be happy to remove their SOSs at home. However, a small risk of stent dislodgment must be considered when making decisions regarding SOS placement after URS. Conclusion: SOS provides an excellent option after URS, especially in those patients with no intraoperative complication, and their placement is done as a routine insertion based on surgeon preference. These stents reduce dwell time, pain, cost, risks, and suffering involved from prolonged stenting, and majority of patients are happy to remove it themselves at home. Although their use seems to be still restricted in the current endourology practices, they are likely to become the new gold standard for routine URS in future, with more shared decision making and patient-reported outcome measures coming into the mainstream.