10 min read
Ureteral Stricture Double J Stent Stent Removal Loss of Kidney Function Unilateral Nephrectomy Lack of Informed Consent Outcome Misrepresentation Rehabilitation Neglect Diagnostic Inaccuracy Communication Breakdown Procedural ComplicationsThe patient underwent surgery for ureteral stricture and related issues, with placement of a double J stent afterward. Several months after stent removal, one kidney was found to have lost all function and was subsequently removed.
Loss of function in one kidney, resulting in disability.
The critical issue in this case was the discharge instruction after double J stent removal, which simply advised outpatient follow-up without specifying any time frame or schedule for monitoring. This lack of clear guidance left the patient without a defined plan for timely reassessment of the ureter and kidney function following stent removal. In the weeks and months that followed, progressive obstruction and loss of renal function went undetected until significant and irreversible damage had occurred. Had a specific follow-up interval—such as imaging or renal function tests within a defined number of weeks—been clearly documented and communicated, earlier intervention might have been possible to address recurrent stricture before complete kidney loss. The sequence of events highlights how vague post-procedure instructions can contribute to serious preventable outcomes in patients with known ureteral disease.
If any discomfort arises while seeking medical care, contact this service at the same time. After removal of a double J stent, reach out to this service promptly. Following these simple steps would have prevented the current tragedy.
We are not physicians operating a clinic. We hold no active medical licenses and have no authority to diagnose conditions, prescribe medications, administer treatments, or deliver personalized medical advice. Nothing published on this site, in any associated materials, or in direct communications from us should be interpreted as medical advice. If you are currently experiencing symptoms or health concerns, seek professional care at a hospital or from a licensed physician without delay.
All content we present may contain inaccuracies or oversights. We are human, and while we work diligently to maintain accuracy, errors can and do occur. Although members of our team have completed medical school, we do not engage in clinical practice. Our approach is grounded in the principle of free speech: we believe we have the right to discuss real treatment cases openly and transparently.
This matters profoundly. For the first time, ordinary people can access unfiltered accounts directly from patients describing what treatments succeeded or failed — without a physician standing between the patient and the audience to frame, narrate, or interpret every detail. It is the difference between letting individuals speak for themselves and always requiring someone else to speak on their behalf or remain present to "explain" their words. Allowing patients to share their own medical records represents a genuinely new form of transparency. The limitation, of course, is that patients are not trained medical writers; their raw stories can sometimes appear disorganized or invite criticism. Our limited role is simply to help organize and present that information clearly, without injecting clinical judgment or altering the underlying facts.
Today, only licensed doctors and medical institutions are generally permitted to publish, narrate, comment on, or pass judgment on treatment cases. This creates an exclusive system in which only insiders control the narrative. It is comparable to insisting that only the restaurant owner may publicly discuss the quality of their own establishment — while simultaneously allowing only a professional "restaurant guild" to review any restaurant at all. Patients and their families are effectively sidelined from the conversation about their own experiences.
That is how the current system operates. We are here to change it.