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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bower, Paul E., Pereira, Jorge, Al-Alao, Osama, Kott, Ohad, Velez, Danielle, Thavaseelan, Simone, Pareek, Gyan
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