stenting versus non-stenting following uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy: comparsion and evaluation of symptoms
Clicks: 281
ID: 153357
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
281 views
42 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #75 of 134 articles by views in applied nursing research : anr
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 134 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Background/Aim. Currently, ureterorenoscopic (URS) stone fragmentation and removal is the treatment of choice for managing ureteral stones, especially mid and distal ones and is advocated as initial management of ureteric stones. The aim of this work was to evaluate the symptoms, necessity, potential benefits and adverse effects of ureteral stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Methods. This retrospective-prospective study evaluated a total of 125 patients who had underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL). The patients were divided into two groups: stented (59 patients) and unstented (controls, 66 patients). The outcomes measured and compared between the two groups included: stone free rate, postoperative patient pain validated by scale, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), the need for unplanned hospital care, stent related complications, and functional recovery in the form return to normal physical activities. Results. A successful outcome, defined as being stonefree after 12 weeks, was achieved in all 125 (100%) patients. The stone-free rate showed no significant differences between the two groups. LUTS was frequent complaint in the stented group, with statistically significant difference in the domain of frequency/urgency (p = 0.0314). There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in the mean operative time and mean hospitalization time, mean pain visual analog scale (VAS) score and in the use of nonnarcotic analgesic. On the day of the surgery and until postoperative day 3 (POD 3) and postoperative day 5 (POD 5), the pain score was much higher among stented patients than among the controls (p = 0.0001) and non-narcotic analgesic use (p = 0.001) was frequently required in the stented group. Conclusion. Routine placement of ureteral stent after URSL is not mandatory and may be associated with stent side effects. Uncomplicated URSL is safe without stent placement after the treatment.
| Reference Key |
slavia2016vojnosanitetskistenting
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Savić Slaviša;Vukotić Vinka;Lazić Miodrag;Savić Nataša |
| Journal | applied nursing research : anr |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.2298/VSP150525071S
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.