{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,14]],"date-time":"2026-08-14T20:37:03Z","timestamp":1786739823066,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":10,"publisher":"Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)","issue":"4","content-domain":{"domain":["lww.com","ovid.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021,10]]},"abstract":"\n Context:<\/jats:title>\n Use of conventional double j stent with string and single loop stent with string after ureterorenoscopy.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Aim:<\/jats:title>\n The aim of this study was to compare the use of both types of stents using the Ureteral Symptom Score Questionnaire (USSQ) and assess proximal migration.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Settings and Design:<\/jats:title>\n This was a single institute study.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Subjects and Methods:<\/jats:title>\n A total of 96 female patients with unilateral ureteric stones were enrolled. Patients underwent ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy, conventional double J (DJ) stent with string and single loop stent with string was placed. Before stent removal at 7\u201310 days, they were evaluated with X-ray kidney ureter bladder for proximal migration and USSQ for stent-related complaints.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Statistical Analysis Used:<\/jats:title>\n \n Data were analyzed using Chi-square and Student's\n t<\/jats:italic>\n -test.\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Results:<\/jats:title>\n \n In our study, Group A (DJ loop with string) had 51 patients and Group B (single J loop with string) had 47 patients. The mean stone size in group A was 10.06 mm and Group B was 9.7 mm. Both groups had one case each of early stent expulsion and none had proximal migration of the stent. Group A had two cases of urinary tract infection and Group B had one case which resolved on antibiotics. Evaluating the USSQ questionnaire in both groups, urinary symptoms such as urgency (\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.03), dysuria (\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.02), interference with life (\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.01), and quality impact overall (\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.016) were statistically significant. Evaluating pain, sleep disturbance (\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.04), pain at voiding (\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.03), and flank pain during voiding (\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.018) was statistically significant. In general health, difficulty with heavyweight physical activity (\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.02), feeling calm (\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.16), social life enjoyment (\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.26), and need for extra help (\n P<\/jats:italic>\n = 0.008) was significant. In sexual matters, 13 (28%) patients in Group B had no active sex (conscious) and 6 (12%) patients had stopped intercourse due to stent-related symptoms, whereas in Group A, it was 10 (20%) and 2 (4%) patients, respectively.\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Conclusions:<\/jats:title>\n The use of a single J stent with string is an effective method, has lesser complication, and is easier to remove.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.4103\/ua.ua_113_20","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2021,9,2]],"date-time":"2021-09-02T10:42:09Z","timestamp":1630579329000},"page":"362-366","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/lww.0000000000001000","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Use of conventional DJ stent and single loop stent with string after ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy"],"prefix":"10.4103","volume":"13","author":[{"given":"Sonu","family":"Sharma","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Vilas","family":"Sabale","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Abhirudra","family":"Mulay","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Sunil","family":"Mhaske","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Vikram","family":"Satav","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Surya","family":"Nihar","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"276","reference":[{"key":"R1-7-20240828","first-page":"1651","article-title":"Ureteral stenting after ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: A multi-institutional prospective randomized controlled study assessing pain outcomes and complications","volume":"499","author":"Borboroglu","year":"2011","journal-title":"J Urol"},{"key":"R2-7-20240828","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"429","DOI":"10.1016\/0090-4295(86)90080-4","article-title":"Simplified method of indwelling ureteral stent removal","volume":"28","author":"Siegel","year":"1986","journal-title":"Urology"},{"key":"R3-7-20240828","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2418","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2007.09.107","article-title":"2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi","volume":"178","author":"Preminger","year":"2007","journal-title":"J Urol"},{"key":"R4-7-20240828","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1153","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2016.05.090","article-title":"Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association\/Endourological Society Guideline","volume":"196","author":"Assimos","year":"2016","journal-title":"J Urol"},{"key":"R5-7-20240828","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"605","DOI":"10.1111\/bju.12541","article-title":"Do ureteric stent extraction strings affect stent-related quality of life or complications after ureteroscopy for urolithiasis: A prospective randomised control trial","volume":"113","author":"Barnes","year":"2014","journal-title":"BJU Int"},{"key":"R6-7-20240828","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1060","DOI":"10.1097\/01.ju.0000049198.53424.1d","article-title":"Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire: Development and validation of a multidimensional quality of life measure","volume":"169","author":"Joshi","year":"2003","journal-title":"J Urol"},{"key":"R7-7-20240828","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E1069","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1464-410X.2012.11219.x","article-title":"Ureteric stent placement with extraction string: No strings attached?","volume":"110","author":"Bockholt","year":"2012","journal-title":"BJU Int"},{"key":"R8-7-20240828","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"121","DOI":"10.1186\/s12894-015-0114-6","article-title":"Rethinking of ureteral stent removal using an extraction string; what patients feel and what is patients\u2019 preference? A randomized controlled study","volume":"15","author":"Kim","year":"2015","journal-title":"BMC Urol"},{"key":"R9-7-20240828","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"129","DOI":"10.1007\/s00240-016-0898-1","article-title":"Ureteric stents on extraction strings: A systematic review of literature","volume":"46","author":"Oliver","year":"2018","journal-title":"Urolithiasis"},{"key":"R10-7-20240828","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"435","DOI":"10.1016\/j.aju.2018.04.005","article-title":"The use of a string with a stent for self-removal following ureteroscopy: A safe practice to remain","volume":"16","author":"Doersch","year":"2018","journal-title":"Arab J Urol"}],"container-title":["Urology Annals"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.4103\/UA.UA_113_20","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,14]],"date-time":"2026-08-14T19:34:10Z","timestamp":1786736050000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.4103\/UA.UA_113_20"}},"subtitle":["Can we use? Can it be effective?"],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2021,10]]},"references-count":10,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4103\/ua.ua_113_20","relation":{},"ISSN":["0974-7796"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0974-7796","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2021,10]]}}}