Dataset Information

Ureteric stenting vs not stenting following uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy: A prospective randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare three groups of patients who underwent uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and to evaluate whether stenting could be eliminated after the procedure, as there is no consensus about whether a ureteric stent should be placed after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone retrieval.

Patients and methods

In this randomised clinical trial (NCT04145063) 105 patients underwent uncomplicated URSL for ureteric stones. They were prospectively randomised into three groups: Group 1 (34 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent, Group 2 (35 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string, and Group 3 (36 patients) with no ureteric stent placed after the procedure. The outcomes measured were: postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score for flank pain and dysuria score, urgency, frequency, suprapubic pain, haematuria, analgesia requirement, operative time, re-hospitalisation, and return to normal physical activity.

Results

The mean (SD) operative time was significantly longer in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3, at 22.2 (9.1), 20.2 (6) and 15.1 (7.1) min, respectively (P < 0.001). The results of the VAS for flank pain and dysuria scores, urgency, frequency, haematuria, and suprapubic pain showed a significant difference at all time-points of follow-up, being significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3 (all P < 0.001). Further analysis showed that measured outcomes, and analgesia need for groups 1 and 2 were similar, at all time-points except at week 1 and 1 month where Group 2 patients' had less symptoms (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Double pigtail ureteric stent placement appears to be unnecessary in procedures considered 'uncomplicated' by operating urologists during surgery. The advantages of the double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string over the double pigtail ureteric stent only include earlier and easier removal with earlier relief of symptoms, and less analgesia requirements.

Abbreviations

KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; URSL: ureteroscopic lithotripsy; VAS: visual analogue scale.

SUBMITTER: Al Demour S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7473245 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Urinary stone disease is very common with an estimated prevalence among the general population of 2-3%. Ureteric stones are associated with severe pain as they pass through the urinary tract and have significant impact on patients' quality of life due to the detrimental effect on their ability to work and need for hospitalisation. Most ureteric stones can be expected to pass spontaneously with supportive care. However, between one-fifth and one-third of cases require an intervention. The two standard active intervention options are extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopic stone retrieval. ESWL and ureteroscopy are effective in terms of stone clearance; however, they differ in terms of invasiveness, anaesthetic requirement, treatment setting, complications, patient-reported outcomes (e.g. pain after intervention, time off work) and cost. There is uncertainty around which is the most clinically effective in terms of stone clearance and the true cost to the NHS and to society (in terms of impact on patient-reported health and economic burden). The aim of this trial is to determine whether, in adults with ureteric stones, judged to require active intervention, ESWL is not inferior and is more cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management option.The TISU study is a pragmatic multicentre non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of ESWL as the first treatment option compared with direct progression to ureteroscopic treatment for ureteric stones. Patients aged over 16 years with a ureteric stone confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) will be randomised to either ESWL or ureteroscopy. The primary clinical outcome is resolution of the stone episode (no further intervention required to facilitate stone clearance) up to six months from randomisation. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at six months from randomisation.Determining whether ESWL is not inferior clinically and is cost-effective compared to ureteroscopic treatment as the initial management in adults with ureteric stones who are judged to require active treatment is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, both in the UK and globally.ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN92289221 . Registered on 21 February 2013.

Project description:BackgroundRenal stone disease is common and can cause emergency presentation with acute pain due to ureteric colic. International guidelines have stated the need for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether a non-invasive outpatient (shockwave lithotripsy [SWL]) or surgical (ureteroscopy [URS]) intervention should be the first-line treatment for those needing active intervention. This has implications for shaping clinical pathways.ObjectiveTo report a pragmatic multicentre non-inferiority RCT comparing SWL with URS.Design, setting, and participantsThis trial tested for non-inferiority of up to two sessions of SWL compared with URS as initial treatment for ureteric stones requiring intervention.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe primary outcome was whether further intervention was required to clear the stone, and secondary outcomes included quality of life assessment, severity of pain, and serious complications; these were based on questionnaires at baseline, 8 wk, and 6 mo. We included patients over 16 yr with a single ureteric stone clinically deemed to require intervention. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were planned.Results and limitationsThe study recruited between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2017. We recruited 613 participants from a total of 1291 eligible patients, randomising 306 to SWL and 307 to URS. Sixty-seven patients (22.1%) in the SWL arm needed further treatment compared with 31 patients (10.3%) in the URS arm. The absolute risk difference was 11.7% (95% confidence interval 5.6%, 17.8%) in favour of URS, which was inside the 20% threshold we set for demonstrating noninferiority of SWL.ConclusionsThis RCT was designed to test whether SWL is non-inferior to URS and confirmed this; although SWL is an outpatient noninvasive treatment with potential advantages both for patients and for reducing the use of inpatient health care resources, the trial showed a benefit in overall clinical outcomes with URS compared with SWL, reflecting contemporary practice. The Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU) study provides new evidence to help guide the choice of modality for this common health condition.Patient summaryWe present the largest trial comparing ureteroscopy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteric stones. While ureteroscopy had marginally improved outcome in terms of stone clearance, as expected, shockwave lithotripsy had better results in terms of health care costs. These results should enable patients and health care providers to optimise treatment pathways for this common urological condition.

Project description:ObjectiveTo decrease the procedural risk of carotid revascularisation it is crucial to understand the mechanisms of procedural stroke. This study analysed the features of procedural strokes associated with carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) within the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) to identify the underlying pathophysiological mechanism.Materials and methodsPatients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis (1,713) were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA. Procedural strokes were classified by type (ischaemic or haemorrhagic), time of onset (intraprocedural or after the procedure), side (ipsilateral or contralateral), severity (disabling or non-disabling), and patency of the treated artery. Only patients in whom the allocated treatment was initiated were included. The most likely pathophysiological mechanism was determined using the following classification system: (1) carotid-embolic, (2) haemodynamic, (3) thrombosis or occlusion of the revascularised carotid artery, (4) hyperperfusion, (5) cardio-embolic, (6) multiple, and (7) undetermined.ResultsProcedural stroke occurred within 30 days of revascularisation in 85 patients (CAS 58 out of 791 and CEA 27 out of 819). Strokes were predominately ischaemic (77; 56 CAS and 21 CEA), after the procedure (57; 37 CAS and 20 CEA), ipsilateral to the treated artery (77; 52 CAS and 25 CEA), and non-disabling (47; 36 CAS and 11 CEA). Mechanisms of stroke were carotid-embolic (14; 10 CAS and 4 CEA), haemodynamic (20; 15 CAS and 5 CEA), thrombosis or occlusion of the carotid artery (15; 11 CAS and 4 CEA), hyperperfusion (9; 3 CAS and 6 CEA), cardio-embolic (5; 2 CAS and 3 CEA) and multiple causes (3; 3 CAS). In 19 patients (14 CAS and 5 CEA) the cause of stroke remained undetermined.ConclusionAlthough the mechanism of procedural stroke in both CAS and CEA is diverse, haemodynamic disturbance is an important mechanism. Careful attention to blood pressure control could lower the incidence of procedural stroke.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess whether avoiding ureteric drainage is superior to performing ureteric drainage after Uncomplicated Ureteroscopy and/or Flexible Ureterorenoscopy (URS/FURS) treatment of a urinary tract stone in improving patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 30-day unplanned readmission rates. A secondary objective was to understand current practice of urologists regarding ureteric drainage after uncomplicated URS/FURS (UU).Material and methodsWe undertook an online survey of urologists, circulated amongst members of international urological societies and through social media platforms. Uncomplicated URS/FURS was defined as completion of URS/FURS treatment for a urinary tract stone, with the absence of: ureteral trauma, residual fragments requiring further lithotripsy procedures, significant bleeding, perforation, prior urinary tract infection or pregnancy. The ureteric drainage options considered included an indwelling stent, stent on a string or a ureteric catheter. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of urologists willing to take part in a RCT, randomising patients after UU to a "no ureteric drainage" arm or ureteric drainage arm. Secondary outcomes included determining in their current practice, the proportion of clinicians performing routine ureteric drainage after UU, the reasons for performing ureteric drainage following UU and their preferred optimal duration for ureteric drainage if it is used. The study was reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).ResultsTotal of 468 respondents from 45 countries took part in the survey, of whom 303 completed the entire survey (65%). The majority agreed that they would be willing to randomise patients (244/303, 81%) in the proposed RCT. Perceived lack of equipoise to randomise was the most common reason for not being willing to participate (59/303, 19%).92% (308/335) reported that they use ureteric drainage after UU. This was most often due to wanting to prevent possible complications from post-operative ureteric oedema (77%) or to aid passage of small fragments (43%). Complexity of the case (i.e. impacted stone 90%) and length of the procedure (46%) were the most important intraoperative factors influencing the decision to use ureteric drainage post procedure. If required, the median stated ideal duration of ureteric drainage was 5 days (IQR: 3-7 days) after UU. If having UU personally, 30% would want no stent postoperatively and over half would prefer a stent on a string.ConclusionWe have highlighted wide variation in practice regarding ureteric drainage after UU. Our results support the feasibility of an RCT evaluating if no ureteric drainage is superior to ureteric drainage in improving PROMs and 30-day unplanned readmission rates following UU.