ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Purpose: Retained or forgotten ureteral stents (FUS) have a potential to cause significant morbidity as well as medico-legal issues and increased cost. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and usefulness of smartphone-based Ureteral Stent Tracker (UST) application and compare the results with basic appointment card system to prevent FUS, prospectively. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 patients who underwent ureteroscopic stone treatment procedure with indwelling DJ stents were equally distributed into two groups. In group-1, patients were followed using UST application. In group-2, only appointment cards were given to the patients. Two groups were compared in terms of stent overdue times and complete lost to follow up rates. Results: Forty-four patients in group-1 and 43 patients in group-2 completed the study. Among patients, 22.7% in group-1 and 27.9% in group-2 did not return for the stent removal on the scheduled day. In group-1, these patients were identified using the UST and called for the stent removal on the same day. After 6 weeks of maximal waiting period, mean overdue times in group-1 and group-2 were 3.5 days and 20 days, respectively (p = 0.001). In group-2, 3 patients (6.9%) were lost to follow up, while in group-1, it was none (p = 0.001). Conclusions: We found that the patients who were followed by the smartphone-based UST application has less overdue times and lost to follow up cases compared to the basic appointment card system. The UST application easily follows patients with indwelling ureteral stents and can identify patients when overdue.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Stents/adverse effects , Stents/standards , Ureteroscopy/methods , Smartphone , Foreign Bodies/prevention & control , Ureteral Calculi/surgery , Ureteral Calculi/etiology , Prospective Studies , Device Removal/methods , Foreign Bodies/surgery , Foreign Bodies/complications , Middle AgedABSTRACT
Penile prostheses are subject to a continuous development and have gained better mechanical reliability and safety during the last decades. In this study, we aimed to investigate the outcomes and satisfaction rates of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and semirigid penile prosthesis (SPP) implantation.
From August 2001 to June 2012, 257 men with erectile dysfunction (ED) underwent penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) at our institution. Of the 257 patients, 118 underwent implantation of IPP and 139 underwent SPP implantation. The pre-operative and post-operative erectile status of the patients were assessed by international index of erectile function (IIEF) questionnaire. The satisfaction of patients and partners were evaluated by a telephone interview using the erectile dysfunction inventory of treatment satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire and EDITS partner survey.
The overall major complication rate was higher in IPP group. PPI led to a significant improvement in IIEF scores in both groups. For IPP and SPP groups the average EDITS scores were 78±11and 57±8, respectively, and that for the partners were 72±10 and 49±7, respectively (p<0.05).
Although the IPP implantation have better satisfaction rates, the SPP implantation is still a viable treatment option in the surgical treatment of ED because of low cost and high durability with acceptable satisfaction rates.