Comparison of Two Different Scoring Systems in Encrusted Ureteral Stent Management: A Single-Center Experience

Can radiological scores predict difficulties in removal of encrusted ureteral stents?

In the present study, we aimed to report our single-center experience in encrusted ureteral stent management and to compare the utility of two different scoring systems in patient management. This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent various surgical procedures to remove encrusted ureteral stent. Encrusted stent grading was performed using KUB and FECal grading sytems. FECal grading system scored from Grade 1 to Grade 5 according to stone size, location, and degree of stent incrustation and the KUB score is the sum of the stone burden scores of three different parts of an encrusted stent within the kidney, ureter, and bladder determined using a scale from 1 to 5 according to the maximal diameter of encrustation. We compared these two classifications for the prediction of perioperative outcomes. Fifty patients were included in the study (52% female, mean age 48 years). The mean time from ureteral stent insertion until diagnosis of encrustation was 11.4 ± 13.6 months. High-grade incrustations (FECal Grade 3, 4, and 5) accounted for 62% of cases. The mean KUB score was 9.8 ± 2.7. The average number of procedures required to remove the stent was 1.71 ± 1.38. Multimodal surgery was required to remove 42% of the stents. Both, a total KUB score ≥ 9 and high-grade FECal classification were found to be significant predictors of longer operative time (> 100 min), need for multiple surgeries, and need for invasive surgery. While high-grade FECal classification showed a significant association with need for multimodal surgery (OR 6.92, p = 0.008), a total KUB score  ≥  9 showed no association (OR 2.91, p = 0.086). These two scores seem to be good indicators in predicting difficulties for surgical management of encrusted ureteral stent with a clear advantage of the FECal score in terms of prediction of multimodal surgery.

Endoscopic management of encrusted ureteral stents: outcomes and tips and tricks

PURPOSE

To report our experience in the management of encrusted ureteral stents (EUS) and provide technical insight of our endourological approaches for difficult scenarios posed by this entity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective evaluation of a longitudinally collected database of 58 patients with encrusted US between December 2012 and May 2022 was performed. The ureteral stents were initially inserted due to obstructive uropathy, pyelonephritis or after a successful endoscopic procedure for urolithiasis. A combination of antegrade/retrograde treatment in single or multiple sessions took place for the retrieval of the encrusted stents. Non-contrast enhanced computer tomography was used for the follow-up of the patients at 1-month after the removal of the encrusted stent.

RESULTS

Overall 58 patients, 39 males and 19 females with a median age of 51 years old were included in the study. Indwelling time was < 6 months, 6-12 months and > 12 months in 22%, 57% and 21% of the cases, respectively. All US were successfully removed. Semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) and flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) were used in 90% of the cases. In 10% of the cases, a second-stage percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) was performed. All US were successfully released. Stone-free rate was 84% at 1-month. Overall complication rate was 10.5% (mostly postoperative fevers, 5.4%).

CONCLUSION

Removal of the encrusted US is a challenging procedure. Appropriate decision-making and knowledge of specific tricks may result in safe and successful management of significant EUS.

Willingness to Pay and Preferences Among Patients Undergoing Cystoscopies: Results from a Large Survey-Based Study in Spain

Purpose

Cystoscopy procedures can cause distress among patients. Patient perspectives on health services are essential inputs in decision-making. This study investigated the patient preferences in Spain regarding single-use cystoscopes (SUC) compared to reusable cystoscopes and their willingness to pay (WTP) for cystoscopy procedures.

Patients and Methods

Between May and June 2021, an anonymous survey was distributed to Spanish patients who had previously undergone a cystoscopy. The survey included patient preference measures on reusable cystoscopes compared to SUCs and a discrete choice experiment. The survey was distributed through a human data science company (IQVIA), collected using an online survey tool (QuestionPro^®), and analyzed using Stata/MP, StataCorp.

Results

Of 300 respondents, 148 (49.33%) were female and 150 (50%) were male, and mainly between 18–49 years (247, 82.33%). Most (265, 88%) preferred to have their procedure performed with a SUC rather than a reusable cystoscope. Among these patients, 215 (80%) could imagine asking their doctor to use a SUC. A total of 231 (77%) respondents indicated an increased level of concern about the risk of exposure to contamination related to their cystoscopy following the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients would pay 62 EUR to have their initial consultation and cystoscopy procedure on the same day (p < 0.001), 59 EUR to reduce the environmental impact, and 57 EUR to reduce the risk of contamination (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Patients prefer to undergo cystoscopy using an SUC on the same day as their initial consultation. The increased contamination concerns due to the COVID-19 pandemic and WTP to reduce the risk of cystoscope contamination may explain patients’ preferences for SUCs. The most important attributes related to their cystoscopy procedure are the ability to have their procedure performed on the same day as their initial consultation, the reduction of the environmental impact, and the reduction of the contamination risk.

A Forgotten Ureteral Stent: Potential Risks for the Urinary Function

A 32-year-old man presented with painless macrohaematuria. An endoscopic stone removal of the upper moiety of a left double kidney with ureter duplex was performed 4 years ago. The inserted ureteral catheter (DJ) was not removed although it was communicated to the patient and written in the discharge report. The DJ led to a large bladder stone, a total incrustation of the DJ, and a staghorn calculus of the upper moiety. Furthermore, renal function scintigraphy showed no clinically significant function of the upper moiety. Therefore, a heminephrectomy was performed with corresponding ureterectomy and sectio alta for bladder stone removal.