Intraureteral vs conventional stent placement: Which is safer, less painful?
Intraureteral seems better than conventional stent placement as it results in less stent-related discomfort, according to a study. This novel placement method is safe and feasible and may be used immediately in daily clinical practice.
A total of 80 patient records were analysed in this study. Patients in the intraureteral vs conventional stent placement group reported significantly lower pain scores (postoperative day 3, 4.85 vs 9.78; p=0.003; postoperative day 14, 3.15 vs 6.20; p=0.014).
The intraureteral group also had significantly lower total International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS; postoperative day 3, 10.41 vs 14.90; p=0.006; and postoperative day 14, 11.67 vs 16.10; p=0.022) and total analgesic use (19.23 vs 88.54 mg; p<0.001). However, no significant difference was seen in the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and total Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS).
Moreover, subgroup analysis revealed significantly better pain score in the groin and bladder areas, incomplete emptying and daytime frequency on the I-PSS, quality of life index, and daytime frequency on the OABSS in the intraureteral than conventional stent placement group on postoperative days 3 and 14 (p<0.05 for all). No between-group difference was observed in the complication rate.
In this study, 85 patients who required ureteral stent placement after lithotripsy were randomly assigned to an intraureteral or a conventional stent placement group. The ureteral stent remained in place until postoperative day 14.
The authors evaluated score on the visual analogue scale pain, the SF-36, the I-PSS and the OANSS on postoperative days 3 and 14. They also examined the total amount of analgesics administered as well as stent-related complications.