ArticleCurrent medical imaging2025
Renal Parenchymal Damage and Persistent Hematuria after D-J Insertion: A Report on Two Cases
Article in Current medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
backgroundIn this case series, we present two male cases with renal parenchymal perforation without perirenal hematoma after D-J ureteral stent insertion, one with nutcracker renal vein syndrome. Our study provides new and important contributions to the field of science regarding what to consider during D-J stent insertion in similar cases and in patients with obstruction in the urinary collecting system for more than 2 months. CASE PRESENTATIONS: Two patients, 30 and 37 years old, who were inserted a D-J catheter after endoscopic ureteral stone treatment, suffered from severe ipsilateral flank pain and hematuria after the operation. The Kidney Urine Bladder (KUB) radiography showed that the proximal part of the D-J stent was protruding from the upper calyx and parenchyma of the kidney in both patients. One of the patients had an ipsilateral nutcracker renal vein syndrome, and the clinical progression was more severe. In both cases, conventional follow-up with bed rest, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAI) therapy, intravenous (IV) fluid infusion, and anti-biotherapy after the D-J stent reposition was sufficient. The patients had no clinical problems during the next outpatient clinic visits.
conclusionDouble-j (D-J) ureteral stent insertion procedure may cause many life-threatening complications, from subcapsular hematoma to pulmonary embolism. In this case series, conventional follow-up was sufficient for the treatment of patients with renal parenchymal damage without perirenal hematoma due to D-J stent insertion, including nutcracker renal vein syndrome cases. More care should be taken when placing D-J stents, especially in patients with obstruction in the urinary collecting system for more than 2 months and with nutcracker renal vein syndrome. In these patients, the soft proximal end of the guidewire should not be pushed and forced too hard to the upper part of the kidney and upper collecting system. Additionally, the D-J stent placement procedure should be performed under fluoroscopy as much as possible to avoid complications.
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.