Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

A Cheap Minimally Painful and Widely Usable Alternative for Retrieving Ureteral Stents

Söylemez H. · Sancaktutar A.A. · Bozkurt Y. · Atar M. · Penbegül N. · Yildirim K.

Author affiliations

Department of Urology, Medical Faculty, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey

Related Articles for ""

Urol Int 2011;87:199–204

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information










I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Login Information





Contact Information










I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00


Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: January 20, 2011
Accepted: March 16, 2011
Published online: August 03, 2011
Issue release date: September 2011

Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 4

ISSN: 0042-1138 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0399 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/UIN

Abstract

Objective: To describe a cheap, minimally painful and widely usable method for retrieving ureteral stents by using an ureteroscope. Subjects and Methods: Sixty-seven patients with ureteral stents were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomized into a cystoscopic (35 patients) and a ureteroscopic (32 patients) group. All stents were retrieved by a flexible cystoscope in the first group and by a ureteroscope in the second group under local anesthesia. Patients in each group were assessed for stented time, stent side, cause of stent placement, operative time, peroperative pain, postoperative pain, irritative voiding symptoms and hematuria. Also costs of instruments were calculated. Results: Stents were successfully retrieved in 67 patients. There were no statistical differences in the two groups regarding patient gender and age or stent side, operative time, stented time, mean operative pain score, irritative voiding symptom scores and hematuria. Total selling price was USD 20.399 for flexible instruments and USD 10.516 for rigid ones. Total maintenance price was higher in flexible instruments than in the rigid ones (USD 197.8 and 51.7 per use, respectively). Conclusion: Ureteroscopic stent retrieval is a minimally painful, safe and highly tolerable method under local anesthesia as well as flexible cystoscopic retrieval. Also, it is a cheap and widely usable method.

© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Simonato A, Galli S, Carmignani G: Simple, safe and inexpensive retrieval of JJ stents with a flexible cystoscope. Br J Urol 1998;81:490–491.
  2. Taylor WN, McDougall IT: Minimally invasive ureteral stent retrieval. J Urol 2002;168:2020–2023.
  3. Figueroa TE: Retrieval of ureteral stents in children. Tech Urol 1995;1:45–47.
  4. Schulman CC WT, Zlotta AR: Single-J ureteral stent with a distal suture; in Yachia D (ed): Stenting the Urinary System. Oxford, Isis Medical Media, 1998, chapter 20, pp 161–164.
  5. Wetton CW, Gedroyc WM: Retrograde radiological retrieval and replacement of double-J ureteric stents. Clin Radiol 1995;50:562–565.
  6. Vesey SG, Athmanathan N: A computerized ureteric stent retrieval system. Br J Urol 1996;78:156.
  7. Cowan NC, Cranston DW: Retrograde radiological retrieval and replacement of double-J ureteric stents. Clin Radiol 1996;51:305–306.
  8. Jeong H, Kwak C, Lee SE: Ureteric stenting after ureteroscopy for ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study assessing symptoms and complications. BJU Int 2004;93:1032–1034.
  9. Lee SJ, Yoo C, Oh CY, Lee YS, Cho ST, Lee SH, et al: Stent position is more important than α-blockers or anticholinergics for stent-related lower urinary tract symptoms after ureteroscopic ureterolithotomy: a prospective randomized study. Korean J Urol 2010;51:636–641.
  10. Wang CJ, Huang SW, Chang CH: Effects of specific α-1A/1D blocker on lower urinary tract symptoms due to double-J stent: a prospectively randomized study. Urol Res 2009;37:147–152.
  11. Beddingfield R, Pedro RN, Hinck B, Kreidberg C, Feia K, Monga M: Alfuzosin to relieve ureteral stent discomfort: a prospective, randomized, placebo controlled study. J Urol 2009;181:170–176.
  12. Evans JW, Ralph DJ: Removal of ureteric stents with a flexible cystoscope. Br J Urol 1991;67:109.
  13. Fowler CG: Removal of ureteric stents with the flexible cystoscope. Br J Urol 1987;60:280.
  14. Iyer SK, Alston D: New flexible cystoscopic stent retriever forceps. Br J Urol 1991;68:441.
  15. Yoshimura R, Wada S, Kishimoto T: Why the flexible cystoscope has not yet been widely introduced? a questionnaire to Japanese urologists. Int J Urol 1999;6:549–559.
  16. Tuncay ÖL: Care and sterilization of urological endoscopic instruments. Turk J Urol 2006;32:71–77.
  17. Yap RL, Batler RA, Kube D, Smith ND: Retrieval of migrated ureteral stent by intussusception of ureteral balloon dilator tip. Urology 2004;63:571–573.
  18. Isen K: Retrieval of DJ stent by using ureteroscope in an infant. J Pediatr Urol 2008;4:247–248.
  19. Livadas KE, Varkarakis IM, Skolarikos A, Karagiotis E, Alivizatos G, Sofras F, et al: Ureteroscopic removal of mildly migrated stents using local anesthesia only. J Urol 2007;178:1998–2001.
  20. Park HK, Paick SH, Oh SJ, Kim HH: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy under local anesthesia: analysis of the effectiveness and patient tolerability. Eur Urol 2004;45:670–673.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: January 20, 2011
Accepted: March 16, 2011
Published online: August 03, 2011
Issue release date: September 2011

Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 4

ISSN: 0042-1138 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0399 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/UIN


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.