Cargando…
Indications for stent omission after ureteroscopic lithotripsy defined: A single-institution experience with cost analysis
Objectives: To report on our experience with the use of an evidence-based algorithm defining specific indications for stent omission (SO) after ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL), as stent placement has been associated with increased cost and morbidity and indications for SO in the setting of uncompli...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6711146/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31489236 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2019.1614243 |
_version_ | 1783446468793729024 |
---|---|
author | Bower, Paul E. Pereira, Jorge Al-Alao, Osama Kott, Ohad Velez, Danielle Thavaseelan, Simone Pareek, Gyan |
author_facet | Bower, Paul E. Pereira, Jorge Al-Alao, Osama Kott, Ohad Velez, Danielle Thavaseelan, Simone Pareek, Gyan |
author_sort | Bower, Paul E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objectives: To report on our experience with the use of an evidence-based algorithm defining specific indications for stent omission (SO) after ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL), as stent placement has been associated with increased cost and morbidity and indications for SO in the setting of uncomplicated ureteroscopy have been proposed but remain vague. Patients and methods: Indications for SO were defined as per the attached figure, data from URSL procedures performed from January 2016 to September 2017 were collected. For procedures eligible for SO, preoperative and intraoperative factors were recorded including: stone burden, presence of preoperative stent, procedure time, access sheath use, and whether SO was performed. Morbidity data were reviewed including: postoperative events, patient telephone calls for bothersome symptoms, unplanned return visits, and admissions within 30 days. Results: In all, 250 URSL procedures were performed during the study period, and 106 (42.4%) were eligible for SO. SO was performed in 60 (24.0%) cases reflecting a 56.7% compliance with the algorithm. There were no readmissions or re-operations within 30 days for the SO group. Lower postoperative event rates were noted in the SO group (16.7% vs 34.8%, P = 0.03), unplanned return visits (8.3% vs 17.4%, P = 0.16) and 30-day readmission rates (0.0% vs 6.5%, P = 0.08) were also lower in the SO group, although they did not reach statistical significance. Analysis also demonstrated a protective effect of SO on unplanned return visits (odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.13–1.42, P = 0.17), although this was not statistically significant. No statistically significant associations were noted between postoperative events and stone burden, procedure time, or presence of preoperative stent. Conclusions: We provide an algorithm defining indications for SO. SO is safe in a significant portion of URSL procedures, and SO appears to decrease postoperative events when performed judiciously. Abbreviations: IQR: interquartile range; LUTS: lower urinary tract symptoms; OR, odds ratio; SO: stent omission; URSL: ureteroscopic lithotripsy; YAG: yttrium-aluminium-garnet |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6711146 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Taylor & Francis |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67111462019-09-05 Indications for stent omission after ureteroscopic lithotripsy defined: A single-institution experience with cost analysis Bower, Paul E. Pereira, Jorge Al-Alao, Osama Kott, Ohad Velez, Danielle Thavaseelan, Simone Pareek, Gyan Arab J Urol Stones/Endourology Objectives: To report on our experience with the use of an evidence-based algorithm defining specific indications for stent omission (SO) after ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL), as stent placement has been associated with increased cost and morbidity and indications for SO in the setting of uncomplicated ureteroscopy have been proposed but remain vague. Patients and methods: Indications for SO were defined as per the attached figure, data from URSL procedures performed from January 2016 to September 2017 were collected. For procedures eligible for SO, preoperative and intraoperative factors were recorded including: stone burden, presence of preoperative stent, procedure time, access sheath use, and whether SO was performed. Morbidity data were reviewed including: postoperative events, patient telephone calls for bothersome symptoms, unplanned return visits, and admissions within 30 days. Results: In all, 250 URSL procedures were performed during the study period, and 106 (42.4%) were eligible for SO. SO was performed in 60 (24.0%) cases reflecting a 56.7% compliance with the algorithm. There were no readmissions or re-operations within 30 days for the SO group. Lower postoperative event rates were noted in the SO group (16.7% vs 34.8%, P = 0.03), unplanned return visits (8.3% vs 17.4%, P = 0.16) and 30-day readmission rates (0.0% vs 6.5%, P = 0.08) were also lower in the SO group, although they did not reach statistical significance. Analysis also demonstrated a protective effect of SO on unplanned return visits (odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.13–1.42, P = 0.17), although this was not statistically significant. No statistically significant associations were noted between postoperative events and stone burden, procedure time, or presence of preoperative stent. Conclusions: We provide an algorithm defining indications for SO. SO is safe in a significant portion of URSL procedures, and SO appears to decrease postoperative events when performed judiciously. Abbreviations: IQR: interquartile range; LUTS: lower urinary tract symptoms; OR, odds ratio; SO: stent omission; URSL: ureteroscopic lithotripsy; YAG: yttrium-aluminium-garnet Taylor & Francis 2019-05-16 /pmc/articles/PMC6711146/ /pubmed/31489236 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2019.1614243 Text en © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Stones/Endourology Bower, Paul E. Pereira, Jorge Al-Alao, Osama Kott, Ohad Velez, Danielle Thavaseelan, Simone Pareek, Gyan Indications for stent omission after ureteroscopic lithotripsy defined: A single-institution experience with cost analysis |
title | Indications for stent omission after ureteroscopic lithotripsy defined: A single-institution experience with cost analysis |
title_full | Indications for stent omission after ureteroscopic lithotripsy defined: A single-institution experience with cost analysis |
title_fullStr | Indications for stent omission after ureteroscopic lithotripsy defined: A single-institution experience with cost analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Indications for stent omission after ureteroscopic lithotripsy defined: A single-institution experience with cost analysis |
title_short | Indications for stent omission after ureteroscopic lithotripsy defined: A single-institution experience with cost analysis |
title_sort | indications for stent omission after ureteroscopic lithotripsy defined: a single-institution experience with cost analysis |
topic | Stones/Endourology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6711146/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31489236 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2019.1614243 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bowerpaule indicationsforstentomissionafterureteroscopiclithotripsydefinedasingleinstitutionexperiencewithcostanalysis AT pereirajorge indicationsforstentomissionafterureteroscopiclithotripsydefinedasingleinstitutionexperiencewithcostanalysis AT alalaoosama indicationsforstentomissionafterureteroscopiclithotripsydefinedasingleinstitutionexperiencewithcostanalysis AT kottohad indicationsforstentomissionafterureteroscopiclithotripsydefinedasingleinstitutionexperiencewithcostanalysis AT velezdanielle indicationsforstentomissionafterureteroscopiclithotripsydefinedasingleinstitutionexperiencewithcostanalysis AT thavaseelansimone indicationsforstentomissionafterureteroscopiclithotripsydefinedasingleinstitutionexperiencewithcostanalysis AT pareekgyan indicationsforstentomissionafterureteroscopiclithotripsydefinedasingleinstitutionexperiencewithcostanalysis |