ArticleUrology annals
Experiences in managing different consequences of forgotten ureteral stents.
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.
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, 1 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.