Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

The Effect of Ureteral JJ Stent Removal Methods on Pain Intensity in Male Patients Under Local Anesthesia

Year 2025, Volume: 17 Issue: 3, 105 - 110, 30.09.2025
https://doi.org/10.54233/endourolbull-1667983

Abstract

Objective: Ureteral stents are commonly used, especially in the treatment of ureteral stones, and are removed endoscopically after a certain period following the procedure. The removal of these stents under local anesthesia, particularly in male patients, can cause pain. Rigid cystoscopes are typically used, but the use of thinner and more flexible endoscopic instruments is considered an alternative to reduce pain. This study aims to compare the pain experienced during Double-J stent removal using a rigid cystoscope versus a semirigid ureterorenoscope (URS).
Materials and Methods: Our study included patients who underwent unilateral endoscopic ureteral stone treatment followed by Double-J stent placement. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether their stent removal was performed using a rigid cystoscope or a semirigid URS. All stent removals were performed by the same surgeon. Immediately after the ureteral stent removal, the pain score was evaluated and recorded by the operating physician using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).
Results: Among the 120 patients included in the study, 57 (47.5%) were in the cystoscopy group (group 1) and 63 (52.5%) were in the URS group (group 2). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of stent side (p=0.47) and average age (p=0.16). However, group 1 had a significantly higher VAS score (3.6±1.7) compared to group 2 (1.9±0.8) (p<0.001).
Conclusion: Due to the long and complex structure of the male urethra, men may experience more pain than women during ureteral stent removal under local anesthesia. Our study found that the use of semirigid URS caused less pain than a rigid cystoscope. Flexible cystoscopes are not commonly used due to their high cost and durability issues, while semirigid URS presents a more cost-effective alternative. The single-center and small sample size of our study indicates the need for larger-scale studies. In conclusion, semirigid URS causes less pain compared to rigid cystoscopes in male patients and is better tolerated.

Ethical Statement

The study protocol was approved by the Etlik City Hospital of Medicine Ethics Committee. Decision no: AEŞH-BADEK-2025-0160, Date: 2025/03/26.

Supporting Institution

No funding was received for conducting this study.

References

  • 1. Finney RP. Experience with new double J ureteral catheter stent. J Urol. 1978;120(6):678–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)57326-7
  • 2. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Allaf ME, Matlaga BR. The effect of ureteral stent placement on post-ureteroscopy complications: a meta-analysis. Urology. 2008;71(5):796–800.
  • 3. Kobayashi T, Nishizawa K, Mitsumori K, Ogura K. Instillation of anesthetic gel is no longer necessary in the era of flexible cystoscopy: a crossover study. J Endourol. 2004;18(5):483–86. https://doi.org/10.1089/0892779041271535
  • 4. Aaronson DS, Walsh TJ, Smith JF, Davies BJ, Hsieh MH, Konety BR. Meta-analysis: does lidocaine gel before flexible cystoscopy provide pain relief? BJU Int. 2009;104(4):506–10.
  • 5. Chen YT, Hsiao PJ, Wong WY, Wang CC, Yang SS, Hsieh CH. Randomized double-blind comparison of lidocaine gel and plain lubricating gel in relieving pain during flexible cystoscopy. J Endourol. 2005;19(2):163–66. https://doi. org/10.1089/end.2005.19.163
  • 6. Kim JH, Park SY, Kim MG, et al. Pain and satisfaction during rigid cystoscopic ureteral stent removal: a preliminary study. BMC Urol. 2014;14:90. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-14-90
  • 7. Jeong YB, Doo AR, Park HS, Shin YS. Clinical significance of ureteral stent removal by flexible cystoscopy on pain and satisfaction in young males: a prospective randomised control trial. Urolithiasis. 2016;44:367–70.
  • 8. Taylor WN, McDougall IT. Minimally invasive ureteral stent retrieval. J Urol. 2002;168(5):2020–23. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64286-3
  • 9. Figueroa T. Retrieval of ureteral stents in children. Techniques in Urology. 1995;1(1):45–47.
  • 10. Söylemez H, Sancaktutar AA, Bozkurt Y, Atar M, Penbegül N, Yıldırım K. A cheap minimally painful and widely usable alternative for retrieving ureteral stents. Urologia Internationalis. 2011;87(2):199–204.
  • 11. Lai D, Chen M, Zha S, Wan S. A prospective and randomized comparison of rigid ureteroscopic to flexible cystoscopic retrieval of ureteral stents. BMC Urol. 2017;17:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0220-8

Lokal Anestezi ile Üreteral JJ Stent Çekilme Yöntemlerinin Erkek Hastalarda Ağrı Şiddeti Üzerine Etkisi

Year 2025, Volume: 17 Issue: 3, 105 - 110, 30.09.2025
https://doi.org/10.54233/endourolbull-1667983

Abstract

Amaç: Üreteral stentler, özellikle üreter taşlarının tedavisinde yaygın olarak kullanılmakta olup, operasyonda belirli bir süre sonra endoskopik yöntemle çıkarılmaktadır. Özellikle erkek hastalarda lokal anestezi ile çıkarılması ağrıya neden olabilmektedir. Genellikle rigid sistoskop kullanılmakta olup hastanın daha az ağrı duyması için daha ince ve esnek endoskopik aletlerin kullanımı alternatif olarak görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada, üreteral çift-J stent çıkarımında rigid sistoskop ile semirigid üreterorenoskop (URS) kullanımının ağrı açısından karşılaştırılması hedeflenmektedir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmamıza tek taraflı endoskopik üreter taş tedavisi sonrası üreteral çift-J stent yerleştirilen hastalar dahil edildi. Hastalar stent çekimlerinin rigit sistoskop ile veya semirigid URS ile olması durumuna göre Sistoskopi ve URS grubu olarak ikiye ayrıldı. Tüm stent çekimleri aynı cerrah tarafından gerçekleştirildi. Üreteral stent çıkarıldıktan hemen sonra, işlemi yapan doktor tarafından görsel analog skala (VAS) ağrı skoru değerlendirildi ve kaydedildi.
Bulgular: Çalışmaya dahil edilen 120 hastanın, 57’si (%47,5) sistoskopi (grup 1), 63’ü (%52,5) URS (grup 2) gruplarını oluşturdu. Gruplar arasında stentin tarafı (p = 0,47) ve yaş ortalaması (p = 0,16) açısından anlamlı fark yoktu. Ancak, grup 1’in VAS skoru (3,6 ± 1,7), grup 2’ye (1,9 ± 0,8) göre anlamlı derecede yüksekti (’p<0,001).
Sonuç: Erkek üretrası uzun ve karmaşık bir yapıya sahip olduğundan, lokal anestezi ile üreteral stent çıkarımında erkekler, kadınlara göre daha fazla ağrı hissedebilir. Çalışmamızda, semirigid URS kullanımının rigid sistoskopa göre daha az ağrıya yol açtığı görüldü. Flexible sistoskoplar yüksek maliyet ve dayanıklılık sorunları nedeniyle yaygın kullanılmazken, semirigid URS daha uygun bir alternatif olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Çalışmamızın tek merkezli ve küçük örneklemli olması, daha geniş çaplı araştırmalara ihtiyaç duyulduğunu göstermektedir. Genel olarak, erkek hastalarda semirigid URS’nin, rigid sistoskopa göre daha az ağrıya neden olduğu ve bu cihazın daha iyi tolere edildiği sonucuna varılmıştır.

References

  • 1. Finney RP. Experience with new double J ureteral catheter stent. J Urol. 1978;120(6):678–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)57326-7
  • 2. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Allaf ME, Matlaga BR. The effect of ureteral stent placement on post-ureteroscopy complications: a meta-analysis. Urology. 2008;71(5):796–800.
  • 3. Kobayashi T, Nishizawa K, Mitsumori K, Ogura K. Instillation of anesthetic gel is no longer necessary in the era of flexible cystoscopy: a crossover study. J Endourol. 2004;18(5):483–86. https://doi.org/10.1089/0892779041271535
  • 4. Aaronson DS, Walsh TJ, Smith JF, Davies BJ, Hsieh MH, Konety BR. Meta-analysis: does lidocaine gel before flexible cystoscopy provide pain relief? BJU Int. 2009;104(4):506–10.
  • 5. Chen YT, Hsiao PJ, Wong WY, Wang CC, Yang SS, Hsieh CH. Randomized double-blind comparison of lidocaine gel and plain lubricating gel in relieving pain during flexible cystoscopy. J Endourol. 2005;19(2):163–66. https://doi. org/10.1089/end.2005.19.163
  • 6. Kim JH, Park SY, Kim MG, et al. Pain and satisfaction during rigid cystoscopic ureteral stent removal: a preliminary study. BMC Urol. 2014;14:90. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-14-90
  • 7. Jeong YB, Doo AR, Park HS, Shin YS. Clinical significance of ureteral stent removal by flexible cystoscopy on pain and satisfaction in young males: a prospective randomised control trial. Urolithiasis. 2016;44:367–70.
  • 8. Taylor WN, McDougall IT. Minimally invasive ureteral stent retrieval. J Urol. 2002;168(5):2020–23. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64286-3
  • 9. Figueroa T. Retrieval of ureteral stents in children. Techniques in Urology. 1995;1(1):45–47.
  • 10. Söylemez H, Sancaktutar AA, Bozkurt Y, Atar M, Penbegül N, Yıldırım K. A cheap minimally painful and widely usable alternative for retrieving ureteral stents. Urologia Internationalis. 2011;87(2):199–204.
  • 11. Lai D, Chen M, Zha S, Wan S. A prospective and randomized comparison of rigid ureteroscopic to flexible cystoscopic retrieval of ureteral stents. BMC Urol. 2017;17:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0220-8
There are 11 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Clinical Sciences (Other)
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Emre Hepşen 0000-0002-4634-5114

İsmail Emre Ergin 0000-0002-3115-0533

Publication Date September 30, 2025
Submission Date March 29, 2025
Acceptance Date August 20, 2025
Published in Issue Year 2025 Volume: 17 Issue: 3

Cite

Vancouver Hepşen E, Ergin İE. The Effect of Ureteral JJ Stent Removal Methods on Pain Intensity in Male Patients Under Local Anesthesia. Endourol Bull. 2025;17(3):105-10.