Abstract
Purpose
To assess the safety and effectiveness of magnetic ureteric stent removal with a special magnet retriever under ultrasound guidance.
Methods
A total of 60 male patients, who underwent ureteroscopy from October 2020 to March 2022, were prospectively enrolled and randomized into two groups. Group A patients underwent conventional double-J (DJ) stent insertion and subsequent stent removal via flexible cystoscopy. Group B patients underwent stent insertion using magnetic ureteric stent [Blackstar, Urotech (Achenmühle, Germany)] and stents were removed using a special magnet retriever under ultrasound guidance. Stents were left in situ for 30 days in both groups. All patients had follow-ups with a ureter stent symptoms questionnaire at 3- and 30-days post stent insertion. Visual analog scale (VAS) was assessed immediately after stent removal.
Results
Stent removal time (142.5 s vs 142.5 s, group A vs group B, p < 0.0001) and VAS scores (4 vs 1, group A vs group B, p = 0.0008) were significantly lower in Group B. There were no statistically significant differences between both groups in the “urinary symptoms” (p = 0.3471) and “sexual matters” (p = 0.6126) in the USSQ domains. There was marginal statistical significance favoring Group A in the “body pain” (p = 0.0303), “general health score” (p = 0.0072), “additional problems” (p = 0.0142), and “work performance” (p < 0.0001) domains.
Conclusions
Magnetic ureteric stent can be considered as a safe and efficient alternative to conventional DJ stent. This approach avoids the need for cystoscopy, saving resources while minimizing patient discomfort.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Finney RP (1978) Experience with new double J ureteral catheter stent. J Urol 120(6):678–681
Ahallal Y, Khallouk A, Jamal M, Fassi E, Farih H (2010) Risk factor analysis and management of ureteral double-J stent complications. Rev Urol 12(2–3):e147
Joshi HB, Okeke A, Newns N, Keeley FX, Timoney AG (2002) Characterization of urinary symptoms in patients with ureteral stents. Urology 59(4):511–516
Liatsikos EN, Kallidonis P, Stolzenburg JU, Karnabatidis D (2009) Ureteral stents: past, present and future. Expert Rev Med Dev 6(3):313–324
Loh-Doyle JC, Low RK, Monga M, Nguyen MM (2015) Patient experiences and preferences with ureteral stent removal. J Endourol 29(1):35–40
Gadzhiev N, Brovkin S, Grigoryev V, Dmitriev V, Korol V, Shkarupa D et al (2016) Ultrasound-guided ureteral stent removal in women. J Ultrasound Med 35(10):2159–2163
Theckumparampil N, Elsamra SE, Carons A, Salami SS, Leavitt D, Kavoussi A et al (2015) Symptoms after removal of ureteral stents. J Endourol 29(2):246–252
Lai D, Chen M, Zha S, Wan S (2017) A prospective and randomized comparison of rigid ureteroscopic to flexible cystoscopic retrieval of ureteral stents. BMC Urol 17(1):1–5
Rassweiler MC, Michel MS, Ritter M, Honeck P (2017) Magnetic ureteral stent removal without cystoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. J Endourol 31(8):762–766
Hanna B, Zhuo K, Chalasani V, Vass J, Rasiah K, Wines M et al (2021) Association between ureteric stent dwell time and urinary tract infection. ANZ J Surg 91(1–2):187–191
Joshi HB, Newns N, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX, Timoney AG (2003) Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire: development and validation of a multidimensional quality of life measure. J Urol 169(3):1060–1064
Barnes KT, Bing MT, Tracy CR (2014) Do ureteric stent extraction strings affect stent-related quality of life or complications after ureteroscopy for urolithiasis: a prospective randomised control trial. BJU Int 113(4):605–609
Oliver R, Wells H, Traxer O, Knoll T, Aboumarzouk O, Biyani CS et al (2018) Ureteric stents on extraction strings: a systematic review of literature. Urolithiasis 46(2):129–136
Taylor WN, McDougall IT (2002) Minimally invasive ureteral stent retrieval. J Urol 168(5):2020–2023
Brillat Arce W, Vuille-dit-Bille RN, Holland-Cunz SG, Frech-Doerfler M (2021) Magnetic double-J-stent removal without general anaesthesia in children. Urology 1(156):251–255
Funding
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JL: Manuscript writing, data analysis. VG: Data analysis, manuscript writing. EJL: Manuscript writing. SD: Data analysis, manuscript editing. SI: Project development, manuscript editing. OV: Data collection, data analysis, manuscript editing. GD: Data collection. PS: Project development, manuscript editing. NG: Project development, manuscript writing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Statement on the welfare of animals and human rights
This article does not contain any studies/experiments with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
All patients participated in this study gave their informed consent to use their deidentified data.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Li, J., Gauhar, V., Lim, E.J. et al. Safety and effectiveness of magnetic ureteric stent removal under ultrasound control: a randomized single center trial. World J Urol 41, 2889–2896 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04437-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04437-5