ArticleJournal of medical case reports2014
Combined endoscopic surgery in the prone-split leg position for successful single-session removal of an encrusted ureteral stent: a case report.
Article in Journal of medical case reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough encrusted stents may lead to some unwanted complications including urinary tract obstruction, urinary sepsis, and potential loss of kidney function, there is currently no consensus on the most efficient method for managing stents that are intentionally left in situ. This is the first report describing the management of an encrusted stent using combined endoscopic surgery in the prone split-leg position in a single session. CASE PRESENTATION: A 47-year-old Asian man presented with left flank pain and macrohematuria. The patient had undergone left ureteral stenting three years previously for the treatment of left ureteral stones and hydronephrosis; however, he was lost to follow-up before the treatment for the ureter stones was completed. Therefore, the ureteral stent and stones were not removed. An abdominal radiograph and a noncontrast computed tomography scan showed encrustation along the retained stent with stone burdens in the kidney and ureter. The ureteral stent could not be removed by cystoscopy after shock wave lithotripsy of the left ureteral stones. Therefore, endoscopic lithotripsy combined with flexible ureteroscopy and miniature nephroscopy was performed with the patient in the prone split-leg position. All the stones and the encrusted ureteral stent were successfully removed in a single session.
conclusionsIn this case, percutaneous nephrolithomy in addition to flexible ureteroscopy was preferred because severe encrustation of the proximal stent and ureteral stones complicated the therapeutic strategy. Combined endoscopic techniques in the prone split-leg position can achieve successful and safe management of encrusted stents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.