You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy III (MP15)1 Apr 2020MP15-06 INDICATIONS FOR STENT OMISSION AFTER URETEROSCOPIC LITHOTRIPSY: A PROSPECTIVE TRIAL FROM THE REGISTRY FOR STONES OF THE KIDNEY AND URETER (RESKU) Robert Fisher*, Kaitlan Cobb, David Friedlander, David Bayne, Seth Bechis, Helena Chang, Thomas Chi, Brian Duty, Jonathan Harper, Ian Metzler, Mathew Sorensen, Marshall Stoller, David Tzou, and Roger Sur Robert Fisher*Robert Fisher* More articles by this author , Kaitlan CobbKaitlan Cobb More articles by this author , David FriedlanderDavid Friedlander More articles by this author , David BayneDavid Bayne More articles by this author , Seth BechisSeth Bechis More articles by this author , Helena ChangHelena Chang More articles by this author , Thomas ChiThomas Chi More articles by this author , Brian DutyBrian Duty More articles by this author , Jonathan HarperJonathan Harper More articles by this author , Ian MetzlerIan Metzler More articles by this author , Mathew SorensenMathew Sorensen More articles by this author , Marshall StollerMarshall Stoller More articles by this author , David TzouDavid Tzou More articles by this author , and Roger SurRoger Sur More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000840.06AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Ureteral stent complications including pain, infection and discomfort are a significant source of emergency room visits in the post-operative period. Per AUA Guidelines, placement of a ureteral stent following ureteroscopy (URS) is at the urologist’s discretion. The risk/benefit calculation for routine use of ureteral stents following uncomplicated URS is controversial. We performed a multi-institutional study to investigate if ureteral stent omission is safe following URS compared to routine stenting. METHODS: From November 2018 to June 2019, a stent omission protocol was instituted at 5 academic centers for patients undergoing URS with laser lithotripsy and/or basketing by 6 fellowship trained endourologists. Inclusion criteria included: age ≥18 years, solitary ureteral stone ≤10 mm, total renal stone burden ≤15 mm with largest stone ≤10cm. Patients were excluded for solitary kidney or if a ureteral access sheath was used without pre-stenting. Data was collected prospectively via ReSKU (The Registry for Stones of the Kidney and Ureter) and was retrospectively reviewed. Analyzed outcomes included event rates of patient phone calls, unplanned emergency department or clinic visits, and unplanned operation. Bivariate differences in categorical and continuous variables between stented and unstented groups were examined using the Pearson's chi-squared and the students t-test, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 344 URS procedures were performed and 134/344 (39.0%) patients met inclusion criteria for ureteral stent omission. Of these candidates, 90 subjects (67%) had their stents omitted, while 44 (33%) deviated from the stent-less protocol. Deviation from the stent protocol did not vary by institution (20% vs. 37.5% vs. 60% vs. 50% vs. 40%; P>0.05). The total event rate (phone call, ED, OR, or clinic) was 19.1% for subjects with a stent versus 20.0% for subjects with a stent omitted (P>0.05); with the majority (30.7%) of these events being phone calls. CONCLUSIONS: In a multi-center prospectively collected study involving 344 individuals undergoing URS for nephrolithiasis, there was a similar proportion of stented and unstented subjects who called, presented to the ED or clinic, or required a return trip to the operating room following uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone disease. Our findings suggest that ureteral stents can be safely omitted in properly selected adult patients. Source of Funding: National Institutes of Health grant (NIH P20-DK-116193). © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e206-e206 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Robert Fisher* More articles by this author Kaitlan Cobb More articles by this author David Friedlander More articles by this author David Bayne More articles by this author Seth Bechis More articles by this author Helena Chang More articles by this author Thomas Chi More articles by this author Brian Duty More articles by this author Jonathan Harper More articles by this author Ian Metzler More articles by this author Mathew Sorensen More articles by this author Marshall Stoller More articles by this author David Tzou More articles by this author Roger Sur More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract