ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Antegrade insertion of ureteric stent has become an established mode of management of upper tract obstruction secondary to ureteric pathology. It is conventionally performed as a two-stage procedure for various reasons but, more recently, a one-stage approach has been adopted. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We discuss our experience of primary one-stage insertion of antegrade ureteric stent as a safe and cost-effective option for the management of these difficult cases in this retrospective observational case cohort study of patients referred to a radiology department for decompression of obstructed upper tracts. Data were retrieved from case notes and a radiology database for patients undergoing one-stage and two-stage antegrade stenting. It was followed by telephone survey of regional centres about the prevalent local practice for antegrade stenting. Outcome measures like hospital stay, procedural costs, requirement of analgesia/antimicrobials and complication rates were compared for the two approaches. RESULTS: a one-stage approach was found to be suitable in most cases with many advantages over the two-stage approach with comparable or better outcomes at lower costs. Some of the limitations of the study were retrospective data collection, more than one radiologist performing stenting procedures and non-availability of interventional radiologist falsely raising the incidence of two-stage procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of any clinical contra-indications and subject to availability of an interventional radiologist's support, one-stage antegrade stenting could easily be adopted as a routine approach for the management of benign or malignant ureteric obstruction.
