Exploring ways to remove the double J tube fluoroscopically from ureter
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005-1201.2016.02.009
- VernacularTitle:透视下输尿管内双J管的取出方法探讨
- Author:
Chengshi CHEN
;
Jincheng XIAO
;
Jing LI
;
Weihui YU
;
Qiwen BAI
;
Pu YU
;
Dengwei ZONG
;
Hongtao CHENG
;
Hongtao HU
;
Chenyang GUO
;
Hailiang LI
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Ureteral obstruction;
Fluoroscopy;
Classification
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiology
2016;(2):118-121
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To investigate the feasibility and safety of the double J tube removal from ureter under fluoroscopy observation. Methods The medical records of patients in our department from April 2013 to March 2015, who performed“double J tube removal and/or replacement”were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. These data included gender and age of the patient, position of the double J tube end in the bladder, removal method, fluoroscopy time, postoperative complications and so on. The removal methods were divided into a direct method and an indirect method. The direct method means using the ring of a gooseneck snare to hitch directly the end of double J tube in the bladder, and pulling it to the urethral orifice. For the indirect method, a guide wire and a gooseneck snare first were sent into the bladder to clip the double J tube, then, the ring of the gooseneck snare was used to hitch the end of the guide wire to withdraw the gooseneck snare and the guide wire to the urethral orifice, and the double J tube was pulled to the urethral orifice. The double J tube end position in the bladder had direct relationship with the choice of removal method. The author divided the double J tube end position in the bladder into A type, B1 type, B2 type, and C type. The bladder was divided into four quarters equally. Direct method was suitable for all types, while indirect method was only suitable for B2 and C type. Between April 2013 and September 2014, all patients were treated by the direct method;between October 2014 and March 2015, all patients with B1 and A type were treated by the direct method, and all patients with B2 and C type were treated by the indirect method. According to the success rate of operation, fluoroscopy time, the incidence of different complications, the efficacy and safety were determined. Results This study recruited a total of 49 patients, including 6 males and 43 females, who underwent 114 times of“double J tube removal”. On average, double J tube was removed 2.3 times per case. The overall success rate was 96.5% (110/114). The application of direct method was 92 times, and the success rate was 95.7%(88/92). The application of indirect method was 22 times, and the success rate was 100%(22/22). In this study, there were 4 failures to remove the double J tube, all of which happened in the direct method for the C type of patients. In the successful 110 cases, the average fluoroscopy time was (11.3+9.5) min. The application of direct method was 88 times, and the average fluoroscopy time was (12.3 ± 10.3) min; the application of indirect method was 22 times, and the average fluoroscopy time was (7.6±3.8) min. There were 10 cases with pain in urethral orifice, in which 9 cases was treated with direct method and one with indirect method. There were 5 cases with gross hematuria complicated in direct method. The overall incidence rate of the complications was 13.2% (15/114). All of postoperative complications resolved spontaneously. Conclusion The direct way and the indirect way to remove ureteral double J tube fluoroscopically are feasible and safe .
