You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Case report
Submucosal impaction of a forgotten DJ stent: addressing the unexpected
  1. Shiraz Akif Mohammed Ziauddin,
  2. Sudheer Kumar Devana,
  3. Aditya Sharma and
  4. Kapil Chaudhary
  1. Urology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sudheer Kumar Devana; drsudheer1983{at}gmail.com

Abstract

A 16-year-old man with horseshoe kidney presented with a right-sided forgotten double J stent (DJS), 1 year after bilateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy. X-ray of the kidney, ureter and bladder showed bilateral residual stones with no encrustations or stone formation on the DJS. Initial attempt of DJS removal using 22 French (Fr) cystoscope and 6/7.5 Fr semirigid ureteroscope failed due to resistance while pulling the DJS and inability to uncoil the upper end of DJS. Finally, percutaneous antegrade scopy was done suggestive of submucosal impaction of the forgotten DJS in upper ureter. The overlying mucosal bridge was cut using holmium: Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (YAG) laser and the DJS was retrieved. The index case highlights an unusual cause of entrapment of the DJS and whenever resistance is encountered, the use of force should be avoided and the cause of resistance should be troubleshooted, thereby preventing serious injuries like ureteral avulsion.

  • urological surgery
  • urology

https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2021-243580

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @SudheerDevana

    • Contributors SAMZ—manuscript preparation and editing. SKD—central Idea generation and manuscript editing. AS—manuscript editing. KC—manuscript editing.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.