Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37024556›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2023

Endoscopic management of encrusted ureteral stents: outcomes and tips and tricks.

Arman Tsaturyan, Gabriel Faria-Costa, Angelis Peteinaris, Marco Lattarulo, Begona Ballesta Martinez, Theofanis Vrettos, Evangelos Liatsikos, Panagiotis Kallidonis

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery: best practices and future perspectives.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Review
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

8 authors.

Arman TsaturyanDepartment of Urology, University of Patras Medical School, Rio, 26500, Patras, Greece. tsaturyanarman@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2499-7015
Gabriel Faria-CostaDepartment of Urology, Unidade Local de Saúde de Matosinhos, Matosinhos, Portugal.
Angelis PeteinarisDepartment of Urology, University of Patras Medical School, Rio, 26500, Patras, Greece.
Marco LattaruloDepartment of Urology, University of Patras Medical School, Rio, 26500, Patras, Greece.
Begona Ballesta MartinezDepartment of Urology, University of Patras Medical School, Rio, 26500, Patras, Greece.
Theofanis VrettosDepartment of Anesthesiology and ICU, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.
Evangelos LiatsikosDepartment of Urology, University of Patras Medical School, Rio, 26500, Patras, Greece.
Panagiotis KallidonisDepartment of Urology, University of Patras Medical School, Rio, 26500, Patras, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo report our experience in the management of encrusted ureteral stents (EUS) and provide technical insight of our endourological approaches for difficult scenarios posed by this entity. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective evaluation of a longitudinally collected database of 58 patients with encrusted US between December 2012 and May 2022 was performed. The ureteral stents were initially inserted due to obstructive uropathy, pyelonephritis or after a successful endoscopic procedure for urolithiasis. A combination of antegrade/retrograde treatment in single or multiple sessions took place for the retrieval of the encrusted stents. Non-contrast enhanced computer tomography was used for the follow-up of the patients at 1-month after the removal of the encrusted stent.

resultsOverall 58 patients, 39 males and 19 females with a median age of 51 years old were included in the study. Indwelling time was < 6 months, 6-12 months and > 12 months in 22%, 57% and 21% of the cases, respectively. All US were successfully removed. Semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) and flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) were used in 90% of the cases. In 10% of the cases, a second-stage percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) was performed. All US were successfully released. Stone-free rate was 84% at 1-month. Overall complication rate was 10.5% (mostly postoperative fevers, 5.4%).

conclusionRemoval of the encrusted US is a challenging procedure. Appropriate decision-making and knowledge of specific tricks may result in safe and successful management of significant EUS.

Indexed as

LithotripsyUreterUreteral CalculiDevice RemovalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesStentsUreteroscopyEncrusted stentEndoscopic combined intrarenal surgeryForgotten ureteral stentsManagement of ureteral stentsUreterorenoscopy

Identifiers

PMID37024556

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.