Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35711481›Full record

ArticleUrology annals

Experiences in managing different consequences of forgotten ureteral stents.

Donghua Xie, Chenbo Hu, Di Gu, Cong Cai, Yongda Liu, Guohua Zeng, Ming Lei

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 55% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Donghua XieDepartment of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Chenbo HuDepartment of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Di GuDepartment of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Cong CaiDepartment of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yongda LiuDepartment of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Guohua ZengDepartment of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Ming LeiDepartment of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Guangzhou Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: We reported the different consequences of forgotten stents and share our managing experiences. Patients and Methods: From July 2011 to August 2019, eight patients (five men and three women) with forgotten encrusted ureteral stents were treated by different endoscopic procedures in our center. Plain-film radiography (kidney, ureter, and bladder [KUB]) and computed tomography were used to evaluate the position of stents, the site of encrustation, and the stone burden. Various sole or combined endoscopic techniques including percutaneous nephrolithotomy, retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy, and cystolitholapaxy were used to achieve stent removal. Results: The average age of the patients was 50.9 years (range: 25-72 years). The mean indwelling time of the stents was 32.9 months (range: 12-83 months). Mean stent stone burden was 15 mm × 10 mm. Three patients had stent stone burden larger than 20 mm. Three patients had a preoperative positive urine culture before treatment. The stent was fragmented in two patients. The ureteral stents and related stones were successfully removed without any complications by a sole or combined endoscopic techniques with stone-free status achieved in all patients. There is no complications occurred. Conclusion: Forgotten stents can lead to complicated urinary tract calculi, stent encrustation, urinary tract infection, vesicoureteric reflux, and even ureteral polyps. Various sole or combined endourological techniques can be used to manage the forgotten encrusted ureteral stents.

Indexed as

Complicationsforgotten stentsmanagement

Identifiers

PMID35711481
PMCPMC9197003
OpenAlexW4212861931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.