ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Investigation of current markers in predicting forgotten ureteral stent encrustation, accompanied by KUB, V-GUES and fecal scoring. here is the dilemma: does every forgotten stent become encrusted?
Article in World journal of urology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEncrustation due to forgotten ureteral stents is one of the challenging and complication-prone conditions in urology. In this study, we aimed to determine the factors affecting the development of encrustation in cases of forgotten stents and to compare the existing encrustation classifications (KUB, V-GUES, FECal).
methodsBetween 2010 and 2024, 85 patients (56 males) who had ureteral stents placed for urinary and oncological reasons but whose removal was forgotten due to interrupted follow-ups and who were therefore planned for treatment were retrospectively analysed. Cases were grouped into those where the stent was encrusted (Group 1) and those where it was not encrusted (Group 2) based on the imaging results. Clinical, laboratory, and radiological data were collected and compared. In cases with encrustation, KUB, V-GUES, and FECal scores were calculated and evaluated for correlation. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 25, and the significance level was set at p<0.05.
resultsThe mean age was 48.9 years, and the average stent dwell time was 14.6 months. Encrustation was observed in 54 patients. No significant differences were found between groups regarding age, sex, stent laterality or dwell time (p>0.05). The mean stone Hounsfield unit (HU) was significantly lower in the encrustation group in both univariate and multivariate analyses (610.2 and 883.7) (p<0.001, 0.003). The mean ureteral diameter was higher in encrustation cases (9.1 and 6.1 mm) (p<0.001, 0.002). Urinary pH was significantly lower in patients with incrustation, but no significant difference was observed in multivariate analysis (5.7) (p<0.001, 0.202). ROC analysis demonstrated that HU, ureteral diameter, and urine pH were significant predictors of encrustation (AUC: 0.847, 0.812, and 0.769, respectively). KUB score showed strong correlation with both V-GUES (r=0.872) and FECal (r=0.834) (p<0.001).
conclusionUreteral stents placed after procedures involving low-HU stones carry a greater risk of becoming encrusted. Among the classification systems, KUB's correlation and predictive utility are paramount.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41670710What 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.