Management of encrusted ureteral stents: Two center experience
Mohanarangam Thangavelu,Mohamed Yehia Abdallah,Olubenga John Isola,Ahmed Kotb
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.3.305
2022-09-26
Abstract:Introduction: We present our experience of the endourological management of encrusted ureteral stents (EUS) and a literature review on forgotten encrusted ureteral stents. Methods: A total of 13 encrusted ureteral stents from 12 patients were removed in two hospitals. The medical records were retrospectively analyzed for stent indication, indwelling time, clinical presentation, investigations, type and the number of surgical procedures, operative time, complications, duration of hospital stay, and the follow-up. Results: Five ureteral stents (US) inserted before ESWL (extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy) for renal stones, seven US for ureteric stones with ureteric colic, and one ureteral stent for post ureteroscopy procedure. The mean indwelling time was 15.07 ± 7.34 months with a range from 6 to 24 months. The mean Kidney,Ureter and Bladder (KUB) score of encrusta-tion grading was 11.84 ± 2.07 with a range from 9 to 15. The encrusted stents were removed by a combination of cystolithotripsy, semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and ESWL. The average total number of procedures to remove one EUS was 3 ± 1.08 with a range of 2 to 5 proce-dures. Six encrusted stents were removed in one, five stents required two, one stent required three and one stent required four hospital admissions. The median operative time was 210 minutes with a range of 60 to 660 minutes per EUS removal and the mean hospital stay was 2.69 ± 1.43 days with a range of 1 to 6 days. All patients had successful removal of encrusted stent and complete stone clearance with no major complica-tions. In the follow-up, one patient had recurrent ureteric stone, one patient on regular stent exchange due to poor renal function and one patient developed significant ureteric stricture referred for reconstruction. Conclusions: Removal of forgotten encrusted impacted ureteral stents is challenging and requires a multimodal surgical approach. It adds significant costs to the health care system and in addition it affects patient safety and quality of life. Patient education, avoiding unnecessary ureteral stent place-ment and a computerized stent monitoring system reduces the incidence of forgotten ureteral stents and their complications.