World journal of urology · 2019
Size does matter: ureteral stents with a smaller diameter show advantages regarding urinary symptoms, pain levels and general health.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Nestler Sebastian, Witte B, Schilchegger L, Jones J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of different diameters of ureteral stents (F4.7, F6, and F7) on quality of life regarding the subdomains of the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients undergoing URS between April 2016 and July 2017 were prospectively randomised for ureteral stents F4.7, F6 and F7, respectively. All patients with other pathologies than a ureter stone, ureteral stents on both sides or other therapy than a secondary URS were excluded. Readmitted patients were interviewed using the USSQ. Furthermore, success rates of the second URS were also noted.
RESULTS: Between April 2016 to July 2017, 181 patients were included, 48 with a ureteral stent F4.6, 66 with F6 and 67 with F7. No significant differences in age, gender or position of the stones before URS were found (all p > 0.5). Comparing scores of USSQ between F4.7 and F6 or F6 and F7, scores were in favour of the smaller stent, but significance was only reached in "Work performance score" (F6-F7, p = 0.04) and "Urinary index score" (F4.7-F6, p = 0.004). When comparing F4.7 with F7, significant differences in all subgroups in favour of F4.7 were documented (all p < 0.03). Surgical success of the second URS was comparable in all groups (all above 82%, p > 0.15).
CONCLUSION: Discomfort and pain increase with the diameter of the indwelling ureter stent, while the success of the following URS is not compromised by a ureter stent with a smaller diameter. Therefore, ureteral stents with a small diameter should be preferred.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients undergoing URS between April 2016 and July 2017 were prospectively randomised for ureteral stents F4.7, F6 and F7, respectively. All patients with other pathologies than a ureter stone, ureteral stents on both sides or other therapy than a secondary URS were excluded. Readmitted patients were interviewed using the USSQ. Furthermore, success rates of the second URS were also noted.
RESULTS: Between April 2016 to July 2017, 181 patients were included, 48 with a ureteral stent F4.6, 66 with F6 and 67 with F7. No significant differences in age, gender or position of the stones before URS were found (all p > 0.5). Comparing scores of USSQ between F4.7 and F6 or F6 and F7, scores were in favour of the smaller stent, but significance was only reached in "Work performance score" (F6-F7, p = 0.04) and "Urinary index score" (F4.7-F6, p = 0.004). When comparing F4.7 with F7, significant differences in all subgroups in favour of F4.7 were documented (all p < 0.03). Surgical success of the second URS was comparable in all groups (all above 82%, p > 0.15).
CONCLUSION: Discomfort and pain increase with the diameter of the indwelling ureter stent, while the success of the following URS is not compromised by a ureter stent with a smaller diameter. Therefore, ureteral stents with a small diameter should be preferred.