Ureteric stenting outside of the operation theatre: challenges and opportunities.
bedside
office
outpatients
stents
ureteric
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Oct 2024
08 Oct 2024
Historique:
medline:
9
10
2024
pubmed:
9
10
2024
entrez:
9
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To evaluate the safety, efficacy, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness of bedside or office-based ureteric stent insertion. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols (PRISMA-P) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 guidelines, we searched PubMed/the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Dimensions for English-language studies from 1978 to April 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on primary ureteric stent placements outside of the operating theatre (OT). A total of 15 studies involving 2072 stents were included. Success rates for correctly positioned stents in bedside or office-based insertions ranged from 60% to 95.8%, with most studies reporting ≥80% success rates. Common failure reasons included impacted stones and difficulty identifying the ureteric orifice. Pain and tolerability were assessed using various methods, with validated tools indicating moderate pain levels, but most patients would undergo the procedure again under local anaesthesia. Complication rates were generally low, with minor complications such as haematuria or postoperative fever being the most common. Procedural costs were significantly lower in non-OT settings, with estimates indicating savings of up to four-fold. Bedside or office-based ureteric stent insertion is a viable alternative to OT procedures, offering high success rates, manageable pain levels, low complication rates, and substantial cost savings. This approach is particularly advantageous in settings with limited OT access, highlighting its potential for broader adoption in urological practice. Future research should focus on standardising pain assessment methods and randomised studies.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.
Références
Liatsikos E, Kallidonis P, Stolzenburg JU, Karnabatidis D. Ureteral stents: past, present and future. Expert Rev Med Devices 2009; 6: 313–324
Finney RP. Experience with new double J ureteral catheter stent. J Urol 1978; 120: 678–681
Sali GM, Joshi HB. Ureteric stents: overview of current clinical applications and economic implications. Int J Urol 2020; 27: 7–15
Clayman RV, Kramolowsky EV. Bedside flexible cystoscopy: an approach to the critically ill patient. J Urol 1986; 135: 1179–1180
Birch BR, Anson KM, Miller RA. Sedoanalgesia in urology: a safe, cost‐effective alternative to general anaesthesia. A review of 1020 cases. Br J Urol 1990; 66: 342–350
Puliatti S, Eissa A, Eissa R et al. COVID‐19 and urology: a comprehensive review of the literature. BJU Int 2020; 125: E7–E14
Storen R. COVID‐19: impacts on health and the Australian health system Australian parliament house: Commonwealth of Australia. 2022. Available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook47p/PandemicHealthSystem.
Butaney M, Rambhatla A. The impact of COVID‐19 on urology office visits and adoption of telemedicine services. Curr Opin Urol 2022; 32: 152–157
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non‐randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008
Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2019
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC et al. ROBINS‐I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non‐randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919
Doersch KM, Machen GL, Thai KH, Sung J, El Tayeb MM. Feasibility and clinical outcomes of ureteral stenting in the office procedural suite. Can J Urol 2018; 25: 9596–9600
Doersch KM, Thai KH, Machen GL, Bird ET, Reilly TP, El Tayeb MM. A comparison of clinical outcomes of operating room versus office‐based ureteral stenting with the novel use of nitrous oxide sedation. Urology 2019; 132: 37–42
Batler RA, Schoor RA, Gonzalez CM, Nadler RB. Bedside ureteral stenting for the critically ill patient: technical considerations. Urology 2001; 57: 1163–1165
Grasso M, Bagley D. Flexible Cystoscopic placement of ureteral stents before shock wave lithotripsy. J Endourol 1990; 4: 229–233
Nourparvar P, Leung A, Shrewsberry AB et al. Safety and efficacy of ureteral stent placement at the bedside using local anesthesia. J Urol 2016; 195: 1886–1890
Sinha S, Jaumdally SZ, Cassim F et al. Outcomes of outpatient ureteral stenting without fluoroscopy at Groote Schuur hospital, Cape Town, South Africa. S Afr Med J 2018; 108: 506–510
Sivalingam S, Tamm‐Daniels I, Nakada SY. Office‐based ureteral stent placement under local anesthesia for obstructing stones is safe and efficacious. Urology 2013; 81: 498–502
Adeyoju AB, Collins GN, Brooman P, O'reilly PH. Outpatient flexible cystoscope‐assisted insertion of ureteric catheters and ureteric stents. BJU Int 1999; 83: 748–750
Babel SG, Winterkorn KG. Retrograde catheterisation of the ureter without cystoscopic assistance: preliminary experience. Radiology 1993; 187: 547–549
Carrion A, D'Anna M, Costa‐Grau M et al. Office stent placement under local anesthesia is a safe and efficient procedure for the management of multiple ureteral disorders. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed) 2018; 42: 126–132
Gershman B, Eisner BH, Sheth S, Sacco DE. Ureteral stenting and retrograde pyelography in the office: clinical outcomes, cost effectiveness, and time savings. J Endourol 2013; 27: 662–666
Jeong BC, Park HK, Kwak C, Oh SJ, Kim HH. How painful are shockwave lithotripsy and endoscopic procedures performed at outpatient urology clinics? Urol Res 2005; 33: 291–296
McFarlane JP, Cowan C, Holt SJ, Cowan MJ. Outpatient ureteric procedures: a new method for retrograde ureteropyelography and ureteric stent placement. BJU Int 2001; 87: 172–176
Yang H, Chappidi M, Overland M, Ahn J, Bayne D, Chi T. Live renal ultrasonography facilitates double‐J ureteral stent insertion at the bedside: a pilot study for the COVID‐19 era. J Endourol 2021; 35: 1078–1083
Giannakopoulos S, Pantazis T, Kalaitzis C, Bantis A, Antoniou DE, Touloupidis S. Outpatient ureteral stent placement under local anesthesia using a flexible cystoscope and fluoroscopic control. Curr Urol 2008; 2: 92–96
Ünal E, Çiftçi TT, Akhan O, Akinci D. Imaging‐guided De novo retrograde ureteral access and stent placement without cystoscopy in women. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2023; 34: 902–909
Tschada R, Mickisch G, Rassweiler J, Knebel L, Alken P. Success and failure with double J ureteral stent. Analysis of 107 cases. J Urol 1991; 97: 93–97
Dean NS, Millan B, Uy M et al. Ureteral Wall thickness is an effective predictor of ureteral stone impaction and management outcomes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Urol 2023; 210: 430–437
Yossepowitch O, Lifshitz DA, Dekel Y et al. Predicting the success of retrograde stenting for managing ureteral obstruction. J Urol 2001; 166: 1746–1749
Johnson RP, Butala N, Alam M, Lawrence N. A retrospective case‐matched cost comparison of surgical treatment of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer in the outpatient versus operating room setting. Dermatol Surg 2017; 43: 897–901
Leblanc MR, Lalonde J, Lalonde DH. A detailed cost and efficiency analysis of performing carpal tunnel surgery in the main operating room versus the ambulatory setting in Canada. Hand 2007; 2: 173–178
Schimberg AS, Wellenstein DJ, van den Broek EM et al. Office‐based vs. operating room‐performed laryngopharyngeal surgery: a review of cost differences. Eur Arch Otorrinolaringol 2019; 276: 2963–2973