Can magnitip double-J stent serve as a substitute for a standard double-J stent?

10Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the morbidity of the magnitip double-J stent (DJ), compare its morbidity to the standard stent, and evaluate the possibility of retrieving the magnetic tip of the DJ stent without cystoscopy. Material and methods: A total of 50 patients having a lower ureteric stone, who underwent uretroscopic stone retrieval and required the use of a DJ, were randomly assigned to 2 groups, each containing 25 patients. Patients in group A were subjected to exploration with a uretroscope and a magnitip DJ while those in group B received a uretroscope and a standard DJ. The morbidity of both types of DJs was assessed by the Arabic version of the ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ). Results: There was a high level of statistically significant differences between the two groups with regards to the total score of the USSQ, which were higher in group A as compared to group B (126.96±14.76 vs. 98.24±12.9) (p=0.001). Further, the cost of the total procedure was significantly higher in group B (9600±1456.59 vs. 8444±783.73) (p=0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between both groups regarding the application, retrieval accuracy, and discomfort caused by DJ removal. Conclusion: The morbidity caused by the magnetic DJ was found to be higher. However, the removal of the magnetic DJ was less costly than the standard DJ.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Farouk, A., Tawfick, A., Hasan, M., Abuftira, A. A., & Maged, W. A. (2019). Can magnitip double-J stent serve as a substitute for a standard double-J stent? Turkish Journal of Urology, 45(6), 437–443. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2019.19038

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free