Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41940115›Full record

ReviewArab journal of urology2026

Comparison of pigtail suture stent vs conventional DJ stent in ureteral stent symptom occurrences: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Krisna Adhitya Wilantara Yusuf, Ginanda Putra Siregar, Syah Mirsya Warli, Bungaran Sihombing, Dhirajaya Dharma Kadar, Yacobda H Sigumonrong, Ramlan Nasution, Fauriski Febrian Prapiska, Kharisma Prasetya Adhyatma, Dianita Halimah Harahap and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Arab 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.

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

11 authors.

Krisna Adhitya Wilantara YusufDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia - Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7311-2124
Ginanda Putra SiregarDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara - Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7603-1176
Syah Mirsya WarliDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara - Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8339-1072
Bungaran SihombingDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara - Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7491-1232
Dhirajaya Dharma KadarDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara - Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3173-0316
Yacobda H SigumonrongDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara - Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8335-8371
Ramlan NasutionDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara - Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8718-9438
Fauriski Febrian PrapiskaDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara - Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4165-3078
Kharisma Prasetya AdhyatmaDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara - Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1941-7431
Dianita Halimah HarahapDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara - Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia.
Muhammad Haritsyah WarliDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara - Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5267-1847

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Pigtail suture stent (PSS) was introduced to reduce the occurrence of ureteral stent symptoms that often occur after placement of DJ stent for most endourology procedures. This study aims to conduct a review and meta-analysis to compare the occurrence of ureteral stent symptoms between PSS and conventional DJ stent using the validated Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ). Methods: Literature search was done under the PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies were included, data were extracted, and pooled analyses were made according to each domain of the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ), namely Urinary Index score, Pain Index score, General Health Index score, Work Performance Score, and Sexual Matters. Pooled effect estimates were generated as Mean difference and their 95%CI, statistical significance was defined with P-value < 0.05, and heterogeneity was examined using I Results: A total of four eligible studies were identified and included in the meta-analysis. A total of 314 patients were included across two RCTs and two prospective cohort studies. Among the USSQ domain, Urinary index (MD = -10.11; 95% CI: -15.24, -4.98; Conclusion: Ureteral stent-related symptoms were significantly better in the PSS compared to conventional DJ stent post-endoscopic surgeries in urology, in terms of urinary and pain index, as well as the work performance domain of USSQ. Limitations include the small number of studies, heterogeneity in study design, and differences in PSS type used.

Indexed as

double J stentendourologyPigtail suture stentsureteral stent symptomsurolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID41940115
PMCPMC13045176

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.