Ureteric stenting with magnetic retrieval: an alternative to traditional methods
- 8 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsDouble J stent Flexible cystoscopy JJ stent Magnetic stent Stent symptoms Ureteric stent Ureteroscopy
JA O’Kelly: project development, data collection/management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing
UM Haroon: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing
A Rauf: data collection/management
KJ Breen: project management/manuscript writing/editing
BB Maguire: project development
IA Cheema: project development
L McLornan: project development
JC Forde: project development, manuscript writing/editing
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This study has been approved by the ethical review board at both Connolly and Beaumont Hospitals and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
- 8.Oliver R, Wells H, Traxer O, Knoll T, Aboumarzouk O, Biyani CS et al (2016) Ureteric stents on extraction strings: a systematic review of literature. Urolithiasis 46(2): 129–136Google Scholar
- 12.Leibovici D, Cooper A, Lindner A, Ostrowsky R, Kleinmann J, Velikanov S, Cipele H, Goren E, Siegel YI (2005) Ureteral stents: morbidity and impact on quality of life. Isr Med Assoc J 7(8):491–494Google Scholar
- 16.Scarneciu I, Lupu S, Pricop C, Scarneciu C (2015) Morbidity and impact on quality of life in patients with indwelling ureteral stents: a 10-year clinical experience. Pak J Med Sci 31(3):522–526Google Scholar