A systematic review of magnetic versus conventional ureteric stents for short term ureteric stenting

Abstract

AbstractUreteric stents play an essential role in urology. However, patients can suffer a range of stent-related symptoms with stent in situ and during removal. Conventional ureteric stents are removed using a flexible cystoscopy, whereas magnetic stents may be rapidly removed with a smaller catheter-like retrieval device. The primary aim of this systematic review was to compare the morbidity including pain associated with conventional versus magnetic ureteric stents. The secondary aim was cost comparison. Searches were performed across databases, including Medline, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane. This review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The search from the 5 databases returned a total of 358 articles. After duplicates were removed as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied, a total of 6 studies were included in the final review. Ureteric Stent Symptoms Questionnaire (USSQ) and Visual Analogue Score (VAS) were used in most of the studies. All the studies reported that magnetic ureteric stents resulted in a reduction in the pain on the removal of magnetic ureteric stents, and no statistically significant difference with indwelling ureteric stents. Furthermore, majority of the studies reported a reduction in the cost associated with magnetic ureteric stents. There is no significant difference in pain from indwelling ureteric stents. There is a reduction in pain with the removal of magnetic ureteric stents compared to conventional removal via cystoscopy and an associated reduction in cost.