ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2026
Randomized, multicenter trial of ureteral stent placement vs. stent omission after ureteroscopy for renal stones.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUreteral stent placement after ureteroscopy is a major contributor to patient morbidity. We sought to evaluate postoperative complications and quality of life (QoL) metrics comparing individuals receiving ureteral stent placement vs. stent omission after ureteroscopy.
methodsA multicenter, randomized controlled trial was performed among patients undergoing ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for non-obstructing renal stones with up to 1.5 cm in total stone diameter. Ureteral access sheath use and laser technique were at the discretion of the surgeon. At case end, if no ureteral injury was observed, patients were randomized to stent placement or stent omission. Primary outcome was the 30-day occurrence of emergency department visits, unanticipated provider visits, or hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included QoL measured by the Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life (WISQOL) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference surveys, opiate use, and abnormal imaging findings at followup.
resultsOf 103 patients enrolled with mean (standard deviation [SD]) stone diameter 9.6 mm (4.5), 74 were randomized to stent placement (n=36) or stent omission (n=38). Ureteral access sheaths were used in 83% and 61% of patients in the stented and unstented groups, respectively. There was no difference in rate of 30-day complications between stent and stent omission cohorts (8% vs. 11%, absolute risk difference -2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -15%, 11%, p=0.75). Stent omission showed better adjusted pre- vs. post-surgery WISQOL scaled score (16.7, 95% CI 3.1, 30.4, p=0.02) and PROMIS 6a t-score (-8.5, 95% CI -15.3, -1.6, p=0.02). No differences between groups were observed in the cumulative opiate use, ability to return to work, symptomatic urinary tract infection, or abnormal imaging findings at followup.
conclusionsCompared to ureteral stent placement, stent omission after ureteroscopy for renal stones appears to be feasible and suggests improved short-term patient-reported outcomes in selected patients. This study was limited by small sample size, and future larger studies are needed.
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.