Indian Journal of Urology Users online:2768  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
CASE REPORT
Year : 2004  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 174-175
 

Management of a ureteral stone following a forgotten stent after transuretero- ureterostomy


Kamats Kidney Hospital, Opp. Government Press, Kothi, Baroda, India

Correspondence Address:
Nagesh Kamat
Kamats Kidney Hospital, Opp. Government Press, Kothi Baroda - 390 001
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

 

Keywords: Forgotten stent, transuretero-ureterostomy, management


How to cite this article:
Kamat N. Management of a ureteral stone following a forgotten stent after transuretero- ureterostomy. Indian J Urol 2004;20:174-5

How to cite this URL:
Kamat N. Management of a ureteral stone following a forgotten stent after transuretero- ureterostomy. Indian J Urol [serial online] 2004 [cited 2019 Aug 22];20:174-5. Available from: http://www.indianjurol.com/text.asp?2004/20/2/174/20753



   Case Report Top


A 35-year-old female patient was operated for trans­uretero-ureterostomy five years back following a ureter­ovaginal fistula. The left ureter was translocated to the right side. A ureteric stent was inserted into the non-trans­located right side. She defaulted in follow up and the stent remained in situ for five years. Now, she presented with right flank pain and burning micturition. Plain X-ray of the kidney, ureter and bladder revealed, besides the stent, a stone on the renal coil of the ureteric stent, and a ureteric stone in the midureter [Figure - 1]. The IVU sequence confirm­ed that the ureteric stone was at the transuretero-uretero­stomy junction and was causing bilateral hydronephrosis and hydroureters [Figure - 1]. A ureteroscopic removal of the ureteric stone, followed by PCNL for removal of the renal stone and the stent was planned. On initial opacification of the ureter, the ureteric stone, which was faintly radiolu­cent, could not be subsequently visualized on the C-arm. Assuming that the stone had migrated into the right upper ureter, because of its straight direction, a decision to go ahead with the PCNL was taken. Through a middle calyc­eal puncture, the renal stone was fragmented and removed, followed by removal of the stent. On searching the ureters on the C-arm, the migrated ureteric stone could be located in the left mid-ureter [Figure - 2]. The 10F Storz rigid uretero­scope could be negotiated beyond the anastomotic site, into the left ureter, but the rigid scope could not cross the midline. Attempts to bring down the ureteric stone from the opposite side left ureter, into the common ulcer, failed. As the daily endoscopic inventory of our general urological department did not include a flexible ureteroscope, the procedure was abandoned. Two days later, the check X­ray KUB showed that the stone had come upto the transuretero-ureterostomy junction. An ureteroscopy was again performed, keeping the availability of a flexible reteroscope, if required. With a plan to avoid migration of the stone into the opposite ureter, the stone was negoti­ated into the right midureter above the anastomotic site and fragmented. The stone clearance was complete and the postoperative recovery was uneventful.


   Comments Top


Forgotten stents and their complications are not so un­common. [1],[2],[3] The difficulty of dealing with this problem with conventional endoscopic equipment in a routine urological set up is highlighted. The preoperative assump­tion that the stone would migrate into the vertically di­rected right ureter proved incorrect, due to the presence of the stent in its lumen. The stone migrated into the rela­tively vacant diagonally placed left ureter. Locating the relatively radio-lucent stone on the superimposing spine was extremely difficult and due to this ESWL by X-ray localization was not considered. As manipulation of the rigid ureteroscope across the midline was potentially dan­gerous, and physically impossible, the procedure was aban­doned, with the expectation that such a mobile stone, would definitely come down upto the transuretero-ureterostomy junction in a few days. Though the ureteric stone was fi­nally removed with the conventional rigid ureteroscope, a flexible ureteroscope could have made it a lot easier to retrieve the migrated stone. Forgotten stents in an altered anatomy can demand an exceptional ingenuity on the part of the managing urologist.

 
   References Top

1.Aron M, Manal K, Gupta NP. Urinary incontinence: an unusual manifestation of a forgotten stent. Br J Urol 1998; 81: 766-7.  Back to cited text no. 1  [PUBMED]  
2.Thomas JA, Fenn NJ, Ponsford A, Bowsher WG. Extraction by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of a forgotten stent after cys­tectomy. Br J Urol 1998; 81: 643-4.  Back to cited text no. 2  [PUBMED]  
3.Lupa AN. Klein E. Chaussey CG. Calcification of ureteral stent treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1986: 136: 1297-8.  Back to cited text no. 3    


    Figures

  [Figure - 1], [Figure - 2]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article

    

 
   Search
 
   Next article
   Previous article 
   Table of Contents
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    [PDF Not available] *
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Case Report
    Comments
    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2101    
    Printed70    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

HEALTHWARE INDIA