A prospective and randomized comparison of rigid ureteroscopic to flexible cystoscopic retrieval of ureteral stents

Abstract

BackgroundFlexible cystoscopy has become an accepted alternative for stent retrieval. However, it is associated with higher cost. Some reports have described experiences of using rigid ureteroscope to retrieve ureteral stents. We compared rigid ureteroscopic to flexible cystoscopic retrieval of ureteral stents in a prospective and randomized clinical trial.MethodsThree hundred patients treated with ureteral stents between July 2012 and July 2013 were accrued in this study. These patients were divided into two groups using the random number table method. Group A, with 162 patients, had stents removed with a flexible cystoscope and Group B, with 138 patients, had stents removed with a rigid ureteroscope. All procedures were performed under topical anesthesia by the same urologist. Patients in each group were compared in terms of preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data. Postoperative data were collected using telephone interview on the postoperative day two. The postoperative questionnaire used included three items: hematuria, irritable bladder symptoms, and pain scores.ResultsAll the stents were retrieved successfully. No statistical differences were noted between the two groups in terms of gender, age, laterality and duration of the stents, operative time, postoperative hematuria, irritable bladder symptoms, and pain scores. The per-use cost of instrument was much higher for the flexible cystoscopic group, RMB 723.1 versus 214.3 (USD 107.9 versus 28.2), P < 0.05.ConclusionUreteral stent retrieval using rigid ureteroscope under topical anesthesia is as safe and effective as flexible cystoscope but with a much lower cost to patients.Trial registrationThis study was registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on March 27, 2017 (retrospective registration) with a trial registration number of ChiCTR-IOR-17010986.