Computerized System for Online Control of Ureteral Catheters Hosted on Google Drive: An Alert Tool

Author(s): Pedro Paulo Polotto, João Paulo Pretti Fantin, Thiago Litaiff Padilha, José Germano F. Arruda, Pedro Francisco F. Arruda, Marcio Gatti, Thiago da Silveira Antoniassi, Ana Paula Bogdan, Lilian Castiglioni, Fernando Nestor Facio Junior, Luis Cesar Fava Spessoto

BACKGROUND: Ureteral catheters are commonly used by different medical specialties more often in medical centers that have a considerable flow of patients making monitoring difficult. Furthermore, forgotten catheters can cause serious complications increasing hospital costs and the possibility of litigation. This study evaluated a Google Drive-hosted computer control system with color-coded warnings in an attempt to reduce the protracted use of ureteral catheters. METHODS: One month after implanting the program, 119 patients were enrolled in the double J ureteral catheter control system. RESULTS: After the implantation of the system, there was a 16.5% reduction in the length of use of ureteral catheters compared to one year earlier. Importantly, the percentage of patients using double J for six months or more decreased, thus the system has contributed significantly to reduce cases of forgotten catheters. The primary limitation was the relatively small number of patients who require prolonged use of ureteral catheters benefit from the use of this computerized warning system. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that there was a reduction in the relative risk of forgotten catheters, a shorter mean time of catheter use and a decrease in the number of patients with excessively long catheter use.

Computational Control System, Google Drive, Ureteral catheter

1. Divakaruni N, Palmer CJ, Tek P, Bjurlin MA, Gage MK, Robinson J, et al. Forgotten ureteral stents: Who’s at risk? J Endourol 2007;27:1051-1054.
2. Slaton JW, Kropp KA. Proximal ureteral stent migration: an avoidable complication? J Urol 1996;1555:58-61.
3. Lynch MF, Ghani KR, Frost I, Anson KM. Preventing the forgotten uretric stent: Results from the implementation on an electronic stent register. BJU Int 2007;99:245-246.
4. Lee SW, Kim JH. Renocolic fistula secondary to a perinephric abscess: A late complication of a forgotten double J stent. J Korean Med Sci 2009;24:960-962.
5. Bukkapatnan R, Seigne J, Helal M. 1-Step removal of encrusted retained ureteral stents. J Urol 2003 vol.170, 1111-1114.
6. Sancaktutar AA, Tepeler A, Söylemez H, Pendegül N, Atar M, Bozkurt Y, et al. A solution for medical and legal problems arising from forgotten ureteral stents? Initial results from a reminder short message service (SMS). Urol Res 2012;40:253-258.
7. Mohan-Pillai K, Keeley FX, Jr. Moussa SA, Smith G, Tolley DA. Endourological management of severely encrusted ureteral stents. J Endourol 13:377, 1999.
8. Singh I, Gupta NP, Hemal AK, Aron M, Seth A, Dogra PN. Severely encrusted polyurethane ureteral stents: management and analysis of potential risk factors. Urology 58:526,2001.
9. Finney RP. Experience with new double J ureteral catheter stent. J Urol 1978;167(2pt2):1135-1138.
10. Richter S, Ringel A, Shalev M, Nissenkorn I. The indwelling ureteric stent: a friendly procedure with unfriendly high morbidity. BJU Int 2000;85:408-411.
11. Ather MH, Talati J, Biyabani R. Physician responsibility for removal of implants: the case for a computerized program for tracking overdue double-J stents. Tech Urol 2000;6(3):189-192.
12. Tang VC, Gillooly J, Lee EW, Charig CR. Ureteric stent card register – a 5-year retrospective analysis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2008;90(2):156-159.