ArticleWorld journal of urology2018
Evaluation of pain perception associated with use of the magnetic-end ureteric double-J stent for short-term ureteric stenting.
Article in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of magnetic versus conventional ureteric stents for short term ureteric stenting.Irish journal of medical science · 2022Pooled it
- Striking a balance: outcomes of short-term Mono-J placement following ureterorenoscopy.Urolithiasis · 2021Trial
- Minimally invasive surgery via minimally invasive anesthesia Is laryngeal mask airway sufficient for supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy?Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026Article
- Choosing the optimal ureteral stent design, size, and material in different situations: a review from the European association of urology endourology.World journal of urology · 2026Review
- Present and future of ureteral stent technology: a review by the EAU endourology section.World journal of urology · 2026Review
- Do elevated intrarenal pressures during mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy increase postoperative pain??Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Comparison of Magnetic and Conventional Double-J Stent Following Kidney Transplantation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Transplantation direct · 2025Article
- Review
- Comparison of the Removal Efficiency and Safety of Magnetic Versus Conventional Ureteral Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.European urology open science · 2023Review
- The "ins and outs" of the magnetic ureteral stent: A novel innovation in Endourology.Current urology · 2023Article
- The Evolving Use of Magnets in Surgery: Biomedical Considerations and a Review of Their Current Applications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Beyond the gut: spectrum of magnetic surgery devices.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Comparison of a magnetic retrieval device vs. flexible cystoscopy for removal of ureteral stents in renal transplant patients: A randomized controlled trial.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021Article
- Feasibility and Safety of a Simple Non-cystoscopic Double-J Tube Removal Technique in Children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- Ureteric stenting with magnetic retrieval: an alternative to traditional methods.Irish journal of medical science · 2020Article
- Magnetic Ureteral Stents Are Feasible in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Single-Center Experience.International journal of organ transplantation medicine · 2019Article
- Letter to the editor regarding the article "Evaluation of pain perception associated with use of the magnetic-end ureteric double-J stent for short-term ureteric stenting".World journal of urology · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the morbidity, complication rate, and pain perception during removal of a novel ureteric stent with a magnetic end using a-traumatic retrieval catheter.
methodsBetween November 2013 and July 2015, 151 consecutive patients who underwent semirigid ureterorenoscopy (URS) for stone removal were prospectively enrolled. Stent removal was performed under local anesthesia using a special magnetic-end stent remover 1 week following URS. At follow-up, we obtained patients' medical history, urine culture result, renal ultrasonogram, and visual analog scale (VAS) score regarding stent irritation (VAS 1) and pain during removal (VAS 2).
resultsPain perception during stent removal was significantly less painful in patients with a magnet stent than in those with a regular stent (p < 0.001). Stent irritation was slightly higher in patients with an indwelling magnet stent than in those with a regular stent (p < 0.001). No significant differences in stent irritations were found in patients who had a magnetic stent for 4 weeks after laparoscopic pyeloplasty (p = 0.20). Patients with a magnetic stent experienced significantly less pain during removal with a median VAS 2 score of 2.5 and a mean VAS 2 score of 2.58 [standard deviation (SD) ± 0.90] than those without a magnetic stent a median VAS 2 of 6 and a mean VAS 2 of 5.88 (SD ± 1.43). The stent length correlated with stent irritation (p = 0.05), and it significantly correlated with pain during removal (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe magnetic-end ureteric double-J stent is a safe option associated with less pain, particularly for male patients requiring short-term ureteric stenting.
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.