Irish journal of medical science · 2019
The utility of stent on strings in clinical practice.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lynch Olwyn E, Redmond Elaine J, Inder Mohammud S, Flynn Robert J, Thomas Arun Z, Smyth Lisa G, Manecksha Rustom P
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Various types of ureteric stents are used in the management of ureteric stones. Stents on strings (SOS) are an attractive option as they may be removed without the need for instrumentation. There is some hesitation using SOS due to perceived complications and the risk of premature dislodgement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of SOS compared with the conventional stent (CS).
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on all ureteric stents removed in the urology department over a 7-month period. Only stents inserted during the endoscopic management of ureteric stones were included in analysis. Patients were contacted to identify the incidence of those seeking medical attention while the stent was in situ or within 2 weeks of stent removal. A basic cost analysis was performed.
RESULTS: One hundred and sixty cases were identified (98 CS, 62 SOS). No SOS was dislodged prematurely. One SOS was removed cystoscopically due to a broken string. There was no significant difference in the number of patients with SOS seeking medical attention following stent placement compared with those with CS (38.1% (12/51) vs 25.6% (22/86), p = 0.48). There was an estimated cost saving of €23,790 associated with the use of SOS during the study period (€390/case). The use of SOS created additional capacity which was utilised for diagnostic cystoscopy.
CONCLUSION: The SOS appeared to be well tolerated and showed similar complication rates as the CS. The use of SOS resulted in a significant cost saving and increased the availability of cystoscopy for other indications.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on all ureteric stents removed in the urology department over a 7-month period. Only stents inserted during the endoscopic management of ureteric stones were included in analysis. Patients were contacted to identify the incidence of those seeking medical attention while the stent was in situ or within 2 weeks of stent removal. A basic cost analysis was performed.
RESULTS: One hundred and sixty cases were identified (98 CS, 62 SOS). No SOS was dislodged prematurely. One SOS was removed cystoscopically due to a broken string. There was no significant difference in the number of patients with SOS seeking medical attention following stent placement compared with those with CS (38.1% (12/51) vs 25.6% (22/86), p = 0.48). There was an estimated cost saving of €23,790 associated with the use of SOS during the study period (€390/case). The use of SOS created additional capacity which was utilised for diagnostic cystoscopy.
CONCLUSION: The SOS appeared to be well tolerated and showed similar complication rates as the CS. The use of SOS resulted in a significant cost saving and increased the availability of cystoscopy for other indications.