Efficacy and safety of the use of infant feeding tubes as internal ureteral stents at Muhimbili National Hospital, Tanzania

R. Nyamsogoro
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of the use of infant feeding tubes as internal ureteral stents at Muhimbili National Hospital, Tanzania","authors":"R. Nyamsogoro","doi":"10.4314/ecajs.v22i3.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Infant feeding tubes are inexpensive, readily available, and have been used as urinary tract stents with some uncertainty about their effectiveness and safety. Double J ureteral stents are available on the market, but among other factors, availability and affordability limit their use in developing countries, including in our hospital. We aimed to compare the efficacy of infant feeding tubes compared to standard double J ureteral stents in patients undergoing open ureteral stenting at Muhimbili National Hospital in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Methods: We conducted a hospital-based cross-sectional analytical study over 12 months. Patients included in the study required open ureteral stenting for different indications and were divided into 2 groups: those for whom infant feeding tubes were inserted during surgery (study group) and those whose surgery used double J stents (control group). After surgery, patients were recruited and observed to ascertain the duration of hospital stay, as well as the presence of haematuria, dysuria, urinary frequency, flank and suprapubic pain, stent migration, and stent encrustation. Observations continued until the day of discharge, after which patients were followed up to the day of stent removal. Results: A total of 44 patients were enrolled in the study. The mean age of participants was 40 years (range 1 to 75). The majority of participants were female (n = 26; 60%). Among the 44 operations, 19 (43.2%) used the infant feeding tube as a stent whereas the remainder (n = 25; 56.8%) used the standard double J ureteral stent. The mean hospital stay among patients who underwent surgery with the infant feeding tube as a stent was 9.6 days, whereas those who used the standard double J stent stayed for 8.8 days (P = 0.37). Postoperatively, haematuria was observed in 19 (43.2%) of the patients; among these, 15 (79%) of them received infant feeding tube stents and 4 (4.3%) received standard double J stents (Χ 2 = 17.4; P = 0.001). The postoperative prevalences of dysuria, flank pain, and suprapubic pain were 6.8%, 20.4%, and 9.1%, respectively. These outcomes did not show association with the type of surgical stent used. None of our study patients experienced postoperative urinary frequency. Imaging studies showed that 57.8% of the infant feeding tube stents were in the normal position postsurgery, whereas all of the standard double J stents were in the normal position (Χ 2 = 12.86; P = 0.005). Further, we found that among the 44 patients, only 1 patient (who underwent surgery that used double J stenting) had postoperative stent encrustation (Χ 2 = 0.7; P = 0.4). Conclusions: Despite producing significantly higher incidences of haematuria and malposition, infant feeding tube as ureteral stents were comparable to double J stents in terms of hospital stay post-stenting, dysuria, flank pain, suprapubic pain and encrustation. Future larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. Keywords: infant feeding tube; double J stent; ureteral stenting complications","PeriodicalId":302666,"journal":{"name":"East and Central African Journal of Surgery","volume":"119 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East and Central African Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/ecajs.v22i3.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Infant feeding tubes are inexpensive, readily available, and have been used as urinary tract stents with some uncertainty about their effectiveness and safety. Double J ureteral stents are available on the market, but among other factors, availability and affordability limit their use in developing countries, including in our hospital. We aimed to compare the efficacy of infant feeding tubes compared to standard double J ureteral stents in patients undergoing open ureteral stenting at Muhimbili National Hospital in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Methods: We conducted a hospital-based cross-sectional analytical study over 12 months. Patients included in the study required open ureteral stenting for different indications and were divided into 2 groups: those for whom infant feeding tubes were inserted during surgery (study group) and those whose surgery used double J stents (control group). After surgery, patients were recruited and observed to ascertain the duration of hospital stay, as well as the presence of haematuria, dysuria, urinary frequency, flank and suprapubic pain, stent migration, and stent encrustation. Observations continued until the day of discharge, after which patients were followed up to the day of stent removal. Results: A total of 44 patients were enrolled in the study. The mean age of participants was 40 years (range 1 to 75). The majority of participants were female (n = 26; 60%). Among the 44 operations, 19 (43.2%) used the infant feeding tube as a stent whereas the remainder (n = 25; 56.8%) used the standard double J ureteral stent. The mean hospital stay among patients who underwent surgery with the infant feeding tube as a stent was 9.6 days, whereas those who used the standard double J stent stayed for 8.8 days (P = 0.37). Postoperatively, haematuria was observed in 19 (43.2%) of the patients; among these, 15 (79%) of them received infant feeding tube stents and 4 (4.3%) received standard double J stents (Χ 2 = 17.4; P = 0.001). The postoperative prevalences of dysuria, flank pain, and suprapubic pain were 6.8%, 20.4%, and 9.1%, respectively. These outcomes did not show association with the type of surgical stent used. None of our study patients experienced postoperative urinary frequency. Imaging studies showed that 57.8% of the infant feeding tube stents were in the normal position postsurgery, whereas all of the standard double J stents were in the normal position (Χ 2 = 12.86; P = 0.005). Further, we found that among the 44 patients, only 1 patient (who underwent surgery that used double J stenting) had postoperative stent encrustation (Χ 2 = 0.7; P = 0.4). Conclusions: Despite producing significantly higher incidences of haematuria and malposition, infant feeding tube as ureteral stents were comparable to double J stents in terms of hospital stay post-stenting, dysuria, flank pain, suprapubic pain and encrustation. Future larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. Keywords: infant feeding tube; double J stent; ureteral stenting complications
坦桑尼亚Muhimbili国立医院使用婴儿喂养管作为输尿管内支架的有效性和安全性
背景:婴儿饲管价格低廉,易得,已被用作尿路支架,但其有效性和安全性尚不确定。市场上有双J输尿管支架,但除其他因素外,可获得性和可负担性限制了其在发展中国家的使用,包括在我们医院。我们的目的是比较在坦桑尼亚达累斯萨拉姆Muhimbili国家医院接受开放输尿管支架植入术的患者中婴儿喂养管与标准双J输尿管支架的疗效。方法:我们进行了为期12个月的以医院为基础的横断面分析研究。本研究纳入的患者因不同适应症需要行开放输尿管支架植入术,分为术中插入婴儿饲管组(研究组)和手术中使用双J型支架组(对照组)。手术后,招募患者并对其进行观察,以确定住院时间、血尿、排尿困难、尿频、侧腹和耻骨上疼痛、支架迁移和支架结痂的存在。观察持续到出院当天,之后对患者进行随访,直至取出支架当天。结果:共有44例患者入组研究。参与者的平均年龄为40岁(范围1至75岁)。大多数参与者为女性(n = 26;60%)。在44例手术中,19例(43.2%)使用婴儿饲管作为支架,其余(n = 25;56.8%)采用标准双J输尿管支架。使用婴儿喂养管作为支架的患者平均住院时间为9.6天,而使用标准双J型支架的患者平均住院时间为8.8天(P = 0.37)。术后出现血尿19例(43.2%);其中15例(79%)接受婴儿饲管支架,4例(4.3%)接受标准双J型支架(Χ 2 = 17.4;P = 0.001)。术后排尿困难、侧腹疼痛和耻骨上疼痛的发生率分别为6.8%、20.4%和9.1%。这些结果与所使用的手术支架类型无关。我们的研究中没有患者出现术后尿频。影像学检查显示57.8%的婴儿饲管支架术后位置正常,而标准双J型支架术后位置正常(Χ 2 = 12.86;P = 0.005)。进一步,我们发现在44例患者中,只有1例患者(行双J型支架植入术)发生了术后支架结痂(Χ 2 = 0.7;P = 0.4)。结论:尽管婴儿饲管作为输尿管支架的血尿和位置错位发生率明显高于双J型支架,但在支架放置后住院时间、排尿困难、侧腹疼痛、耻骨上疼痛和结痂方面与双J型支架相当。未来需要更大规模的前瞻性研究来证实这些发现。关键词:婴幼儿饲管;双J型支架;输尿管支架置入并发症
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信