4.5 Article

The effect of short-term preoperative ureteral stenting on the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 7, Pages 1435-1440

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2519-9

Keywords

Retrograde intrarenal surgery; Preoperative ureteral stenting; Duration; Ureteral balloon dilation; Ureteral injury

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of preoperative ureteral stenting duration on the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).Patients and methodsWe reviewed our database of patients who underwent RIRS between May 2011 and April 2017 at our institution. The patients were divided into three groups according to preoperative ureteral stenting duration: group 1: no stenting, group 2: short preoperative stenting (<7days) and group 3: long preoperative stenting (>= 7days). We compared the rate of ureteral injury, other perioperative complications, ureteral dilation and readmission, stone-free rate (SFR) and operative time among the groups.ResultsA total of 560 patients (215 in group 1, 177 in group 2 and 168 in group 3) were included in this study. The mean of maximum stone size was 13.1 (6.2) mm, the mean number of stones was 2.3 (+/- 1.9) and preoperative ureteral stenting duration was 7.2 (+/- 3.7) days. There were no significant differences in operative time (75.6, 78.5 and 82.4min, p=0.280), SFR (79.1, 84.2 and 81.0%, p=0.433), ureteral injury rate (7.0, 5.1 and 2.4%, p=0.123) and other perioperative complication rates (12.1, 6.8 and 6.0%, p=0.061). The only one case of grade IV ureteral injury occurred in group 1 and the rate of ureteral dilation was significantly higher than in group 2 and 3 (14.9, 5.7 and 6.0%, p<0.001).Conclusion Although preoperative ureteral stenting duration has no significant effect on operative outcomes, it is an effective procedure for reducing the rate of intraoperative ureteral balloon dilation and preventing high-grade ureteral injuries.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available