Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40314031›Full record

ArticleCase reports in urology2025

Recurrent Urosepsis Following Stent Removal for Ureteral Stones: A Case Report.

Cesar Prugue, Parker Reber, Amanda Austin

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Case reports in urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Cesar PrugueEdward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Spartanburg, South Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6369-2938
Parker ReberEdward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Spartanburg, South Carolina, USA.
Amanda AustinGateway Family Medicine, Bon Secours, Travelers Rest, South Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urosepsis, a severe infection originating from the urinary tract, can be life-threatening. We present the case of a 56-year-old female who developed urosepsis twice within 15 days, each episode occurring shortly after stent removal. Ureteroscopy with stent placement was initially performed to treat a 12-mm stone in the distal left ureter. Although the stent was removed only after imaging showed no residual stones, sepsis developed shortly after, leading to another ureteroscopy and stent placement. Before the removal of the second stent, imaging again confirmed no stones were present, yet she experienced sepsis once more following the second stent removal. Further imaging studies during hospital admission for both episodes of sepsis revealed stone fragments and hydronephrosis which were missed during office evaluations. This case highlights the need for more effective imaging techniques to detect residual stones. The decision to place a stent after ureteroscopy for ureteral stone treatment should also be carefully considered, even for low-risk patients, to reduce infection risk.

Identifiers

PMID40314031
PMCPMC12043385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.