González-Ramírez MA, Méndez-Probst CE, Feria-Bernal G

Language: Spanish
References: 8
Page: 7-12
PDF size: 547.47 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective. To identify risk factors related to double-J ureteral catheter calcification and to analyze different management strategies for catheter extraction.
Materials and Methods. A retrospective study from information in our data-base from January 2004 to August 2007 was carried out. A total of 382 double-J ureteral catheters were placed. Catheter calcification occurred in 39 patients (10.2%) and simple extraction was not possible in 30 of them (7.8%) and so we concluded that they were “retained”. Different variables were analyzed in the 39 patients to identify lithogenic factors and removal method. A comparative study with the Fisher test was carried out in two groups: calcification that was identified before 6 months (Group 1) and after 6 months (Group 2). This time interval could not be determined in 2 patients.
Results. There were 12 patients in Group 1 (32.4%) and 25 patients in Group 2 (67.6%). A genetic factor was identified in 20.5% of patients, a metabolic factor in 69.2%, an infectious factor in 17.9%, a structural factor in 15.4% and a pharmacological factor in 25.6%. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups. The catheter was removed in a single procedure in 35 patients. Only 1 complication presented (renal pelvic urinary fistula). There was no significant change in overall kidney function.
Conclusions. Double-J ureteral catheter calcification is a serious complication and its removal can be difficult. Successful catheter removal in a single procedure even in the case of severe calcification is possible when the surgeon is experienced in endourological management. It is important that patients at high risk for lithogenesis be under close surveillance.

REFERENCES

1. Finney, RP. Experience with new double J ureteral catheter stent 1978. J Urol 2002 167:1135-8.

2. El-Faquih SR, Shamsuddin AB, Chakrabaarti A et al. Polyurethane internal stents in treatment of stone patients: Morbidity related to indwelling times. J Urol 1991;146:1487-91.

3. Mohan-Pillai K, Keeley FX Jr, Moussa SA et al. Endourological management of severely encrusted ureteral stents. J Endourol 1999; 13:377-9.

4. Bithelis G, Bouropoulos N, Liatsikos EN, Perimenis P. Assessment of encrustations on polyurethane ureteral stents. J Endourol 2004; 6:550-9.

5. Stickler DJ, Morris N, Moreno M, Sabbuba N. Studies on the formation of crystalline bacterial biofilms on urethral catheters. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1998;17:1.

6. Tieszer C, Reid G, Denstedt J. Conditioning film deposition on ureteral stents after implantation. J Urol 1998;160:876.

7. Burgos Revilla FJ, Vallejo Herrador J, Sáenz Garrido J. Utilidad de los catéteres endourológicos en el tratamiento de la litiasis urinaria. Arch Esp Urol 2001;54:895.

8. Abdul Majid Rana, Abdul Sabooh. Management strategies and results for severly encrusted retained ureteral stents. J Endourol 2007;21:628.