No abstract

INTRODUCTION Ureteric stenting is a common urological procedure. Forgotten stents have a well-documented morbidity and mortality. Therefore, we asked the question, is a stent register an important factor in reducing the number of lost or overdue stents? PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a retrospective review of 203 patients who had ureteric stents inserted in the operating theatre, for the 5-year period 1 December 1998 to 1 December 2003. We analysed all stent cards, patient notes and theatre logs; where no record of stent removal was found, we contacted the patient, their GP or their local hospital. RESULTS A total of 191 patients were identified from the stent card register. An additional 12 patients were found from the theatre logs, but with no record in the stent card register. Of the 203 patients, 8 had bilateral stents. The most common indication for stenting was stone disease. Of the 203 patients, 11 had overdue stents and 51 had no record of the stents ever being removed. The 51 presumed ‘forgotten’ stents were traced, and it was found that 42 patients had had their stents removed by other hospitals, and 9 patients died with stents in situ, but before they were due for removal. CONCLUSIONS Our current stent card tracking system is ineffective, because it was infrequently reviewed. However, despite overdue and ‘forgotten’ stents which were removed by other hospitals, no patients came to any real harm and we had no lost stents. Our stent register system did not appear to play any role in terms of preventing stent loss, and it seems likely that there are other more effective safeguards in place to prevent this from happening. However, if a stent register was required at all, a computerised system would be preferable. Alternatively, patients could share some of the responsibility of stent tracking with their clinicians.