Ureteric stenting outside of the operation theatre: challenges and opportunities.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety, efficacy, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness of bedside or office-based ureteric stent insertion.

METHODS

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols (PRISMA-P) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 guidelines, we searched PubMed/the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Dimensions for English-language studies from 1978 to April 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on primary ureteric stent placements outside of the operating theatre (OT).

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies involving 2072 stents were included. Success rates for correctly positioned stents in bedside or office-based insertions ranged from 60% to 95.8%, with most studies reporting ≥80% success rates. Common failure reasons included impacted stones and difficulty identifying the ureteric orifice. Pain and tolerability were assessed using various methods, with validated tools indicating moderate pain levels, but most patients would undergo the procedure again under local anaesthesia. Complication rates were generally low, with minor complications such as haematuria or postoperative fever being the most common. Procedural costs were significantly lower in non-OT settings, with estimates indicating savings of up to four-fold.

CONCLUSION

Bedside or office-based ureteric stent insertion is a viable alternative to OT procedures, offering high success rates, manageable pain levels, low complication rates, and substantial cost savings. This approach is particularly advantageous in settings with limited OT access, highlighting its potential for broader adoption in urological practice. Future research should focus on standardising pain assessment methods and randomised studies.