MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The use of triclosan eluting stents effectively reduces ureteral stent symptoms: a prospective randomized trial

2012· article· en· W1546333206 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos E. Méndez-Probst, Lee Goneau, Kyle W. MacDonald, Linda Nott, Shannon Seney, Chelsea Elwood, Dirk Lange, Ben H. Chew, John D. Denstedt, Peter A. Cadieux

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaLawson Health Research InstituteVancouver General HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriclosanStentMedicineRandomized controlled trialAntibioticsSurgeryAntibiotic prophylaxisLevofloxacinBiofilmBacteriaMicrobiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Infection, encrustation and ureteral-stent-related symptoms (USRS) including pain, urgency and frequency are all major problems associated with stent use. No current ureteral stent or exogenously applied therapy adequately deals with these problems and antibiotic use is ineffective once a bacterial biofilm forms on the device. Triclosan is a broad spectrum antibacterial agent widely used in numerous healthcare products and has been previously shown to reduce inflammation on the skin and in the oral cavity. This study tested a triclosan-impregnated ureteral stent for its ability to reduce infection, encrustation and USRS. This study shows that while a triclosan-impregnated ureteral stent cannot reduce infection rates alone compared with antibiotic use, the stent can reduce several USRS including pain during indwelling. This study suggests that the triclosan eluting stent may have a role in treating patients, perhaps in combination with standard antibiotic therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the capacity of triclosan-loaded ureteral stents to reduce stent-associated bacterial attachment, biofilm formation and encrustation, thereby potentially reducing infection development and other device-related sequelae. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty subjects requiring short-term stenting (7-15 days) were randomized to receive either a Percuflex Plus(®) non-eluting stent (control) or a Triumph(®) triclosan eluting stent. Control-stented subjects received 3 days of levofloxacin prophylaxis (500 mg once daily) while Triumph(®)-stented subjects did not. All subjects were assessed for positive urine and stent cultures, stent biofilm development and encrustation. Following device removal, each subject completed an analogue-scale symptom assessment questionnaire. RESULTS: Ureteral stenting was performed after nine ureteroscopic and one extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy procedure in the control group and eight ureteroscopic and two shock wave lithotripsy procedures in the triclosan group. No significant differences were observed for culture, biofilm and encrustation between the two groups. Subjects in the triclosan group reported significant reductions in lower flank pain scores during activity (58.1% reduction, P = 0.017) and urination (42.6%, P = 0.041), abdominal pain during activity (42.1%, P = 0.042) and urethral pain during urination (31.7%, P = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the use of the Triumph(®) triclosan eluting stent had no marked impact on biofilm formation, encrustation or infection development in short-term stented patients. The Triumph(®) device led to significant reductions in several common ureteral-stent-related symptoms, supporting its use in this patient population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207