Magnetic Black-Star® double J stent in kidney transplantation: Is it worthy?

Sallusto, F.; Rischmann, P.; Prudhomme, Thomas; Labadens, Isabelle; Danet, Colette; Gamé, X.; Doumerc, N.; Huyghe, E.; Roumiguié, Mathieu; Beauval, J.B.; Delaunay, B.; Laclergerie, F.; Benoit, T.; Thoulouzan, M.; Gryn, A.; Roulette, P.; Binhazzaa, M.; Moreau, Christopher; Kamar, Nassim; Soulié, M.

doi:10.1016/s1569-9056(19)30747-x

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]13,14] These 9 studies included 3 retrospective studies, [5,9,10] 3 randomized control trials, [4,8,14] 2 prospective studies, [6,13] and 1 case-control study. [7] The 8 excluded articles consisted of 3 ongoing clinical trials, [15][16][17] 1 case report, [18] 1 cost evaluation, [19] 2 papers were updated pilot studies from the same authors, [20,21] and 1 conference abstract [22] (Table 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “ins and outs” of the magnetic ureteral stent: A novel innovation in Endourology

Damodaran¹,

Els²,

Daras³

et al. 2022

Curr Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundUreteral stents play a major role in maintaining ureteral patency. Various innovations are advocated in the design and subsequent removal of traditional double-J ureteral stents, such as the magnetic-end double-J ureteral stent (MEDJUS). This stent facilitates outpatient removal using a magnetic stent removal device. This systematic review was conducted to analyze the published role, efficacy, and outcomes of MEDJUS.Materials and methodsAfter PROSPERO registration (CRD42021235739), an electronic database search (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science) was performed on December 31, 2020. The search terms were as follows: “magnetic,” “ureteric,” “stent,” “double-J,” “urotech,” and “Black-Star.”ResultsNine studies with a total of 685 patients were included in the systematic review. The total number of MEDJUS procedures used was 498 (73%) compared to the 187 (27%) traditional double-J stent method. Magnetic-end double-J ureteral stent extraction failure was reported in 8 cases (1.61%). Compared with traditional stents, MEDJUS showed a cost benefit in 5/5 studies. Better pain scores (during stent in situ) and (at stent removal) were observed in 2/3 and 3/4 of the studies, respectively.ConclusionsMagnetic-end double-J ureteral stent may serve as a viable alternative to traditional double-J stents, offering cost and pain benefits with similar rates of complications. Magnetic-end double-J ureteral stent also offers relative ease of extraction and a reduced need for inpatient removal. This ambulatory stent removal technique has forged its use in modern urological practice.

show abstract