Comparison of a magnetic retrieval device vs. flexible cystoscopy for removal of ureteral stents in renal transplant patients: A randomized controlled trial.
Journal
Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada
ISSN: 1911-6470
Titre abrégé: Can Urol Assoc J
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101312644
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
4
8
2020
medline:
4
8
2020
entrez:
4
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Placement of a ureteral stent at the time of renal transplantation can reduce complications when compared to non-stented anastomoses. Removal by flexible cystoscopy can be associated with discomfort, risk for infection, and high costs. New magnetic stents offer a means of bypassing cystoscopy by use of a magnetic retrieval device. Our objective was to compare clinical and cost-related outcomes of conventional and magnetic stents in patients undergoing deceased donor renal transplantation. Patients were randomized to receive either a conventional or a Black-Star Forty-one patients were randomized to conventional (n=19) or Black-Star (n=22) stent. The total time for stent removal under cystoscopy was significantly longer compared to Black-Star removal (6.67±2.47 and 4.80±2.21 minutes, respectively, p=0.019). No differences were found in the USSQ domains between groups. Rates of urinary tract infections and surgical complications between groups were similar. Stent removal was well-tolerated in both groups. Black-Star stent use resulted in a cost savings of $304.02 Canadian dollars (CAD) per case. USSQ scores suggest that stent removal with the Black-Star magnetic stent is as equally well-tolerated as flexible cystoscopy by renal transplant patients. Black-Star stent removal was significantly faster than conventional stents. No differences in discomfort, infection rate, or complication rate were found. Use of the Black-Star stent resulted in an estimated annual savings of $27 360 CAD at our centre.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32745000
pii: cuaj.6684
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.6684
pmc: PMC7864704
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
E97-E102Références
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2015 Apr;103(3):608-17
pubmed: 24965000
J Urol. 1989 Sep;142(3):701-3
pubmed: 2671410
Investig Clin Urol. 2017 Jan;58(1):48-53
pubmed: 28097268
Am J Transplant. 2007 Jun;7(6):1536-41
pubmed: 17430402
J Urol. 2003 Mar;169(3):1060-4
pubmed: 12576846
Transplant Proc. 1998 Nov;30(7):2995-7
pubmed: 9838320
BJU Int. 2002 Mar;89(4):347-9
pubmed: 11872022
BJU Int. 2011 Nov;108 Suppl 2:42-4
pubmed: 22085126
J Endourol. 2015 Dec;29(12):1361-5
pubmed: 25603481
J Endourol. 2017 Aug;31(8):762-766
pubmed: 28478732
Int J Pharm. 2015 Nov 30;495(2):651-9
pubmed: 26392243
Curr Opin Urol. 2016 May;26(3):277-82
pubmed: 26840739
Urol Int. 2006;76(4):301-3
pubmed: 16679829
J Endourol. 2015 Feb;29(2):246-52
pubmed: 25137344
Ir Med J. 2018 Feb 09;111(2):687
pubmed: 29952436
J Urol. 2002 Nov;168(5):2020-3
pubmed: 12394699
World J Urol. 2018 Mar;36(3):475-479
pubmed: 29236163
J Urol. 1994 Sep;152(3):976-7
pubmed: 8051775
Urology. 2014 Oct;84(4):960-6
pubmed: 25151437
Am J Transplant. 2004 Nov;4(11):1889-96
pubmed: 15476491
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 17;(6):CD004925
pubmed: 23771708