Irish journal of medical science · 2019
Ureteric stenting with magnetic retrieval: an alternative to traditional methods.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
O'Kelly John A, Haroon Usman M, Rauf Abdul J, Breen Kieran J, McGuire Barry B, Cheema Ijaz A, McLornan Liza, Forde James C
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Ureteric stents are frequently placed following endo-urological procedures. These stents cause significant morbidity for patients. Standard ureteric stents are removed by flexible cystoscopy. This procedure can be unpleasant for patients and requires additional resources. A newly designed magnetic stent allows removal in an outpatient setting. The aim of our study is to compare the magnetic stent and standard ureteric stents with regard to morbidity, pain on stent removal and cost-effectiveness.
METHODS: This study was carried out across two sites between September 2016 and July 2017. In site A, a magnetic stent (Urotech, Black-Star®) is removed by magnetic retrieval device. Fifty consecutive patients completed the validated Ureteric Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) and visual analogue scale (VAS) at the time of stent removal. On site B, a soft polyurethane stent (Cook Universa) was removed by flexible cystoscopy. Fifty patients were identified retrospectively and completed questionnaires by post. Cost analysis was also performed.
RESULTS: One hundred questionnaires were included for analysis. No significant difference in stent morbidity as assessed by the USSQ was shown between both groups. Median duration of stenting was significantly shorter in the magnetic stent group (5.5 versus 21.5 days, p < 0.001). Mean pain on stent removal was significantly less with magnetic retrieval (2.9 versus 3.9, p < 0.05). Complication rates were similar in both groups. Cost analysis showed a cost saving of €203 per patient with the magnetic stent group.
CONCLUSION: Magnetic stents cause similar morbidity for patients compared with standard stents removed by flexible cystoscopy; they are associated with less pain at removal and are cost saving.
METHODS: This study was carried out across two sites between September 2016 and July 2017. In site A, a magnetic stent (Urotech, Black-Star®) is removed by magnetic retrieval device. Fifty consecutive patients completed the validated Ureteric Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) and visual analogue scale (VAS) at the time of stent removal. On site B, a soft polyurethane stent (Cook Universa) was removed by flexible cystoscopy. Fifty patients were identified retrospectively and completed questionnaires by post. Cost analysis was also performed.
RESULTS: One hundred questionnaires were included for analysis. No significant difference in stent morbidity as assessed by the USSQ was shown between both groups. Median duration of stenting was significantly shorter in the magnetic stent group (5.5 versus 21.5 days, p < 0.001). Mean pain on stent removal was significantly less with magnetic retrieval (2.9 versus 3.9, p < 0.05). Complication rates were similar in both groups. Cost analysis showed a cost saving of €203 per patient with the magnetic stent group.
CONCLUSION: Magnetic stents cause similar morbidity for patients compared with standard stents removed by flexible cystoscopy; they are associated with less pain at removal and are cost saving.