{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,7]],"date-time":"2026-10-07T07:21:49Z","timestamp":1791357709781,"version":"4.3.1"},"reference-count":28,"publisher":"SAGE Publications","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2021,3,1]],"date-time":"2021-03-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1614556800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/page\/policies\/text-and-data-mining-license"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["journals.sagepub.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Journal of Endourology"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021,3]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Objectives:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Ureteroscopic ureteral perforations have been reported in up to 6% of cases, with recent studies suggesting a decline to less than 2%. Ureteroscopic perforations are managed with prolonged ureteral stenting of up to 6 weeks based on historical data. We sought to evaluate the time of urothelial healing and duration of ureteral stenting following a ureteroscopic perforation in a porcine model.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Materials and Methods:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Part A: Ureteral perforation using a semirigid ureteroscope was performed in 37 ureters. The ureters were stented using 4.7F\u2009\u00d7\u200922\u2009cm stents for 3, 7, 10, or 14 days, and retrograde pyelograms performed after stent removal. Injured ureteral segments were collected for histologic evaluation. Part B: 8 ureters had endoscopic perforation and stenting for 7 days and then survived for 4 weeks for evaluation of urinary extravasation or hydronephrosis and histologic evaluation.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Part A: At 3 days of ureteral stenting, there was urinary extravasation on retrograde pyelograms and gross defect in all ureters; average creatinine increased (1.55\u20131.75\u2009mg\/dL). Starting at 7 days, no evidence of gross urothelial defects or extravasation, and average creatinine was stable. Histologic evaluation revealed urothelial healing by 7 days with ongoing tissue healing. Granulation tissue predominated in early phase of healing. Part B: With only 7 days of ureteral stenting, no extravasation or hydronephrosis developed a month after stent removal.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Following ureteroscopic ureteral perforation in a porcine model, the urothelium is functionally intact with 7 days of stenting. These results are sustained without complications for at least 4 weeks after stent removal. While further studies are warranted, these results challenge the current practice of maintaining ureteral stenting for several weeks following ureteral perforation during ureteroscopy.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2020.0449","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2020,8,7]],"date-time":"2020-08-07T02:35:53Z","timestamp":1596767753000},"page":"259-265","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/sage-journals-update-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":4,"title":["Duration of Ureteral Stenting Following Ureteroscopic Perforation in a Porcine Model"],"prefix":"10.1177","volume":"35","author":[{"given":"Amy M.","family":"Reed","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Urology Division, Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, JBSA-Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA."}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Christine L.","family":"Christensen","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Clinical Investigation and Research Support, JBSA-Lackland AFB, Texas, USA."}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Christopher L.","family":"Allam","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Urology Division, Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, JBSA-Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA."}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"179","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2021,3,1]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_3_4_2_2","unstructured":"Duffey B Monga M. Principles of endoscopy; chapter 8 vol 1. In: Wein AJ Kavoussi LR Partin AW Peters CA eds. Campbell Walsh-Urology 11th Edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Elsevier 2016."},{"key":"e_1_3_4_3_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2012.03.052"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_4_2","unstructured":"Surgical Management of stones: American Urological Association\/Endourological Society Guideline. https:\/\/www.auanet.org\/guidelines\/surgical-management-of-stones-(aua\/endourological-society-guideline-2016). Accessed July8 2017."},{"key":"e_1_3_4_5_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2015.07.041"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_6_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ucl.2005.11.005"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_7_2","unstructured":"Stoller ML Wolf JS. Endoscopic ureteral injuries. In: McAninch JW editor. Traumatic and Reconstructive Urology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders 1996 pp. 199\u2013211."},{"key":"e_1_3_4_8_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(01)64679-2"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_9_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(05)65978-2"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_10_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2006.20.179"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_11_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0094-0143(03)00089-2"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_12_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/B978-1-4160-6911-9.00048-7"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_13_2","first-page":"513","article-title":"Intubated ureterostomy: A new operation for ureteral and ureteropelvic strictures","volume":"76","author":"Davis D","year":"1943","unstructured":"Davis D. Intubated ureterostomy: A new operation for ureteral and ureteropelvic strictures. Surg Gynecol Obstet, 1943; 76:513.","journal-title":"Surg Gynecol Obstet"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_14_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(17)67365-8"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_15_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2004.18.982"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_16_2","volume-title":"Laboratory Animal Medicine","author":"Helke KL","unstructured":"Helke KL, , Ezell PC, , Duran-Struuck RL, et al. Chapter 16: Biology and diseases of swine, table 16.1 porcine hematology and clinical chemistry values. In: Fox JG, et al. eds. Laboratory Animal Medicine, 3rd Edition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2015, p. 701."},{"key":"e_1_3_4_17_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2016.0895"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_18_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1464-410X.2011.10495.x"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_19_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.5527\/wjn.v3.i4.243"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_20_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2012.0227"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_21_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2012.08.197"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_22_2","first-page":"43","article-title":"Ureteral regenderation: Contracture vs. hyperplasia of smooth muscle","volume":"75","author":"Oppenheimer R","year":"1995","unstructured":"Oppenheimer R, , Hinman F. Ureteral regenderation: Contracture vs. hyperplasia of smooth muscle. J Urol, 1995; 75:43.","journal-title":"J Urol"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_23_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(17)35765-8"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_24_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jvir.2017.02.032"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_25_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.1989.3.85"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_26_2","first-page":"383","article-title":"Swine as a replacement for dogs in the surgical teacing and research lab","author":"Swindle MM","year":"1984","unstructured":"Swindle MM. Swine as a replacement for dogs in the surgical teacing and research lab. Lab Animal Sci, 1984:383.","journal-title":"Lab Animal Sci"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_27_2","first-page":"470","article-title":"Endoureterotomy in an animate modle: Comparison of electrosurgical, mechanical and balloon treatment modalities","volume":"147","author":"Figenshau R","year":"1992","unstructured":"Figenshau R, , Sq Stone AM, , Clayman R, et al. Endoureterotomy in an animate modle: Comparison of electrosurgical, mechanical and balloon treatment modalities. J Urol, 1992; 147:470.","journal-title":"J Urol"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_28_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(01)65742-2"},{"key":"e_1_3_4_29_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.1995.9.15"}],"container-title":["Journal of Endourology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1089\/end.2020.0449","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1089\/end.2020.0449","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1089\/end.2020.0449","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,28]],"date-time":"2026-04-28T20:18:13Z","timestamp":1777407493000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1089\/end.2020.0449"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2021,3]]},"references-count":28,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021,3]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1089\/end.2020.0449"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1089\/end.2020.0449","relation":{},"ISSN":["0892-7790","1557-900X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0892-7790","type":"print"},{"value":"1557-900X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2021,3]]}}}