ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Patient "Virtual" Self-Removal of Ureteric Stents With Extraction Strings Following Ureterorenoscopy.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUreterorenoscopy (URS) is commonly followed by ureteric stent placement to maintain drainage and prevent complications. Stents with extraction strings allow for patient self-removal, potentially reducing hospital visits and healthcare costs. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of a METHODOLOGY: A prospective review was undertaken of all patients who received a ureteric stent with an extraction string after URS at a UK tertiary center between 2016 and 2021. Patients were provided verbal and written instructions, including red-flag symptoms and details of the
resultsA total of 112 patients (median age 48.2 years, range 18-86; 46 (41%) were female and 66 (59%) male) met the inclusion criteria. Median stent dwell time was 4 (range 0-10) days. Ninety-nine patients (88.4%) successfully self-removed their stents at home with email confirmation, while 10 patients (8.9%) underwent removal by a healthcare professional. Complications occurred in 9 patients (8.0%), none exceeding Clavien-Dindo grade II. No adverse patient feedback was reported. Compared with published literature, complication rates and stent dislodgement were lower. The practice was associated with significant estimated cost savings by avoiding outpatient cystoscopy.
conclusionsPatient self-removal of ureteric stents using extraction strings, with virtual confirmation, is a safe and effective strategy. It minimizes hospital visits, reduces healthcare costs, and empowers patients. Wider adoption of this model could standardize care pathways and support NHS sustainability targets. Further multicenter studies and randomized trials are warranted to validate these findings.
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.