Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Kidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsUreteral procedures and complicationsGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Forgotten ureteral stents: a systematic review of literature

Open access
Wang, Xiaochuan, Ji, Zhengguo, Yang, Peiqian, Li, Jun, Tian, Ye·2024·BMC Urology
DOI 10.1186/s12894-024-01440-9PMC PMC10913558
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: The forgotten ureteral stents (FUS) is one of the late complications of stent placement. This systematic review summarized different aspects of FUS and focused on the problems and solutions related to FUS. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed® and Embase® were searched from inception until October 1st, 2022. Eligible studies were those defining FUS as a stent unintentionally left in situ longer than at least 2 months. Results: Total 147 studies with 1292 patients were finally included. The mean indwelling time of FUS was 33.5 months (range from 3 months to 32 years). The most common initial cause for stent placement was adjunct treatment to urolithiasis (79.2%). The major forgetting reasons were patient-related (83.9%), which included poor compliance, lapse in memory, and misconceptions about the necessity of timely removal. Primary presenting complaints were flank pain (37.3%), lower urinary tract symptoms (33.3%), and hematuria (22.8%). Encrustation (80.8%) and urinary tract infections (40.2%) were the most common complications detected in patients with FUS. Computed tomography evolving as a preferred imaging test (76.1%) was indispensable for evaluating encrustation, migration, fracture and other complicated situations in patients with FUS. Besides, evaluation of kidney function and infection status was also of great importance. Multiple and multimodal procedures (59.0%) were often necessitated to achieve the stent-free status, and were mostly endoscopic procedures. Cystoscope was most commonly used (64.8%). Retrograde ureteroscopy (43.4%) and antegrade stent removal (31.6%) were often used when dealing with more complicated situations. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (30.4%) was often used as adjunctive to other endoscopic procedures, but it sometimes failed. The decision regarding the choice of treatment is based on the volume and site of encrustation, the direction of migration, the site of fracture, kidney function and other urinary comorbidities. Conclusions: FUS not only pose hazard to patients’ health, but also impose a huge economic burden on medical care. Thorough preoperative evaluation is fundamental to developing the treatment strategy. The management of FUS should be individualized using different treatment modalities with their advantages to minimize patients’ morbidities. Prevention is better than cure. Strengthening health education and setting a tracking program are of great importance to the prevention of FUS.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12894-024-01440-9

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 PRISMA flowchart of the included studies
Fig. 1 PRISMA flowchart of the included studiesCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 30

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wang, X., Ji, Z., Yang, P., Li, J., & Tian, Y.
Affiliations
Capital Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
Tian, Ye
ORCID
Venue
BMC Urology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-03-05
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
52-52
ISSN
1471-2490 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12894-024-01440-9
PMC
PMC10913558
OpenAlex
W4392471434
Cited by
30
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 3
FWCI
2.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Urology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Capital’s Funds for Health Improvement and Research (2022-2-1102)
  • Beijing Natural Science Foundation (7232027)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Kidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Ureteral procedures and complications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Keywords
forgotten ureteral stent, ureteral stent complications, stent encrustation, stent migration, stent fracture, urolithiasis, stent removal, retrograde ureteroscopy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, medication adherence, flank pain, hematuria, urinary tract infection, computed tomography
MeSH terms
Foreign Bodies, Hematuria, Humans, Lithotripsy, Stents, Ureteroscopy, Cystoscopes, Fractures, Bone, Urolithiasis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.