The Pigtail Ureteral Stent In The Cancer Patient

Hepperlen, Thomas W.; Mardis, Hal K.; Kammandel, H

doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)56643-4

Cited by 75 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They are mainly indicated after any ureteral surgery and for managing ureteral obstruction due to intrinsic or extrinsic causes like stones, strictures, uretero-pelvic junction obstruction, retroperitoneal fibrosis, malignancies, and congenital anomalies (1)(2)(3)(4)(5). They are also placed after iatrogenic injuries to the ureter and before any complex abdominal procedure Clinical Urology doi: 10.1590/S1677-55382010000400005 for identification and protection of the ureters (6).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endourological Management of Forgotten Encrusted Ureteral Stents

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To present our experience and discuss the various endourological approaches for treating forgotten encrusted ureteral stents associated with stone formation. Materials and Methods: From July 2006 to December 2008, 14 patients (11 men and 3 women) with encrusted ureteral stents were analyzed. The average indwelling time of the stent was 4.9 years (range 1 to 12). Plain-film radiography was used to evaluate encrustation, stone burden, and fragmentation of the stents. Intravenous urogram and a Tc99m diethylene triamine penta acetic-acid renogram was used to assess renal function. Results: In seven patients, the entire stent was encrusted, in three patients the encrustation was confined to the ureteral and lower coil part of the stent, two patients had encrustation of the lower coil, and minimal encrustation was observed in two patients. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy was performed in 5 cases and retrograde ureteroscopy with intra-corporeal lithotripsy in 9 patients. Cystolithotripsy was used to manage the distal coil of the encrusted stent in eight patients. Simple cystoscopic removal of the stents with minimal encrustation was carried-out in two cases. Looposcopy and removal of the stent was performed in one patient with an ileal conduit and retained stent. Only one patient required open surgical removal of the stent. Thirteen out of 14 patients were rendered stone and stent free in one session. All except two stents were removed intact and stone analysis of encrustation and calcification revealed calcium oxalate and calcium phosphate in the majority of the cases. Conclusion: Endourological management of forgotten encrusted stents is highly successful and often avoids the need for open surgical techniques.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endourological Management of Forgotten Encrusted Ureteral Stents

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ElFaqih et al found encrustation increased from 9.2% at less than 6 weeks' time to 47.5% at 6 to 12 weeks to 76.3% at more than 12 weeks of dwelling time. [7] …”

Section: Minimalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forgotten Encrusted Ureteral Stents: Endourological Management

Gupta¹,

Datey²,

Lohia³

et al. 2016

jemds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSETo present single centre experience in various endourological approaches for treating forgotten encrusted ureteral stents associated with stone formation. MATERIALS AND METHODSFrom October 2013 to April 2015, 8 patients (6 males and 2 females) presented with forgotten encrusted and broken ureteral stents. The average indwelling time of the stent was 3.2 years (Range 1 to 7 years). The radiological investigation included X-ray-KUB and intravenous urography to evaluate encrustation, stone burden, fragmentation and assess the renal function. RESULTSThe stent was entirely encrusted in two patients, three patients had encrustation confined to the kidney and three patients had encrustation of the lower coil with one patient having encrustation of the ureter. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy was performed in 5 cases, retrograde ureteroscopy with intracorporeal lithotripsy in 3 patients, cystolithotripsy in 3, while in one patient simple cystoscopic removal of the stent with minimal encrustation was carried out. All the 8 patients were stone and stent free in one session. CONCLUSIONEndourological management of the forgotten encrusted stents is highly successful and avoids the need for open surgical techniques. KEYWORDSStents, Forgotten, Endourological.HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Gupta V, Datey SM, Lohia R, et al. Forgotten encrusted ureteral stents: Endourological management.

show abstract

“…It allows good urinary drainage from kidney to bladder and is generally safe and well tolerated. They are mainly indicated after ureteral and renal surgery and are used for managing ureteral obstruction due to stones, strictures, ureteropelvic junction obstruction, and retroperitoneal fi brosis etc [1][2][3][4][5] . They are also used after iatrogenic injuries to ureter and before any complex abdominal procedure for identifi cation and protection of ureters 6 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multimodal management of forgotten encrusted ureteral stents

Dongol¹,

Ghimire

2017

J. Kathmandu Med. Coll.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Forgotten ureteral stents are seen in urologic practice because of ignorance of patients or failure of physician to counsel the patients. They can cause signifi cant morbidity and pose a management and legal dilemma. Objectives: To evaluate the effi cacy and feasibility of different endourological approaches like percutaneous nephrolithotomy, ureteroscopic lithotripsy, cystolithotripsy and extracorporeal lithotripsy in the treatment of forgotten encrusted ureteral stents. Methods: Total 10 patients with forgotten encrusted double J stents from January 2013 to Nov 2015 were included. Mean age of the patients was 38.4 years (1.5 -5 years). All patients were evaluated for stent encrustation and associated stone burden by X-ray KUB and Intravenous Urography. Combined endourological procedures like percutaneous nephrolithotomy, ureteroscopic lithotripsy, cystolithotripsy and extracorporeal lithotripsy and even open surgery was done to remove these stents. The patients characteristics, indications for stenting, indwelling time, site of encrustation, hospital stay etc were all noted. Results: Total 10 patients presented with forgotten Double J stents. Out of three patients with large encrustations both in renal pelvis and urinary bladder, one patient underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy and cystolithotripsy. Rest two patients underwent extracorporeal lithotripsy for two sessions for renal pelvic encrustation and cystolithotripsy for urinary bladder encrustation. Four patients underwent ureteroscopic and cystolithotripsy. Two patients in whom all fractured coils were in urinary bladder, underwent cystolithotripsy. All the stents were removed under C-arm fl uoroscopic guidance. In one patient, open ureterotomy was done to remove the knotted stent. Conclusion: The use of Double J stent should be limited. The combination of various endourological techniques and extracorporeal lithotripsy can achieve effective stent and stone treatment with minimal morbidity and hospital stay.

show abstract

The Pigtail Ureteral Stent In The Cancer Patient

Cited by 75 publications

References 4 publications

Endourological Management of Forgotten Encrusted Ureteral Stents

Endourological Management of Forgotten Encrusted Ureteral Stents

Forgotten Encrusted Ureteral Stents: Endourological Management

Multimodal management of forgotten encrusted ureteral stents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About