Prevalence and predictors of stone passage after double J stenting for symptomatic ureteral stones: a cross-sectional, real-life study

Purpose To evaluate the rate of and predictors of stone passage (SP) after urgent retrograde stenting for symptomatic ureteral stones. Methods We retrospectively analysed data from 249 consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department for symptomatic ureteral stones and treated with retrog...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:World journal of urology 2024-01, Vol.42 (1), p.8-8, Article 8
Main Authors: Nogara, Andrea, Lucignani, Gianpaolo, Turetti, Matteo, Silvani, Carlo, Marmiroli, Andrea, Nizzardo, Marco, Gadda, Franco, Zanetti, Stefano Paolo, Longo, Fabrizio, De Lorenzis, Elisa, Albo, Giancarlo, Salonia, Andrea, Montanari, Emanuele, Boeri, Luca
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Computed tomography
Emergency medical care
Implants
Kidney stones
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Nephrology
Oncology
Original Article
Regression analysis
Statistical analysis
Ureter
Urology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose To evaluate the rate of and predictors of stone passage (SP) after urgent retrograde stenting for symptomatic ureteral stones. Methods We retrospectively analysed data from 249 consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department for symptomatic ureteral stones and treated with retrograde stenting. Demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics were collected. Stones parameters were collected before stenting and SP was evaluated at 1 month with computerized tomography. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models tested the association between predictors and SP. Results Overall, median (IQR) age and stone diameter were 56 (45–68) years and 7.1 (4.4–9.8) mm, respectively. Stones were located in the proximal, mid and distal ureter in 102 (41.0%), 48 (19.3%) and 99 (39.8%) cases. SP was observed in 65 (26.2%) individuals. Stone diameter (3.2 vs. 7.7 mm, p  
ISSN:1433-8726
0724-4983
1433-8726
DOI:10.1007/s00345-023-04717-0