Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 130–136 | Cite as

Primary and Secondary Percutaneous Ureteral Stent Placement: Comparison of Stent Patency and Clinical Outcome

  • Seo Yeon Youn
  • Jung Suk OhEmail author
  • Hae Giu Lee
  • Byung Gil Choi
  • Ho Jong Chun
  • Eu Hyun Kim
Clinical Investigation
  • 255 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To compare early double J ureteral stent (DJUS) dysfunction rate and long-term patency between two percutaneous ureteral stent placement methods: single-stage (primary) or two-stage (secondary) procedures.

Methods

A total of 250 (176 primary and 74 secondary) DJUS placements performed on interventional unit were retrospectively reviewed between February 2008 and March 2014. Early DJUS dysfunction was defined as no passage of contrast media into the urinary bladder in 2–3 days after placement. Long-term patency was considered if the ureteral stent functioned for 3 months (time point for a first routine DJUS change). Amount of blood retained in the collecting system was scored on nephrostogram immediately after DJUS placement with three levels of score.

Results

The overall early DJUS dysfunction rate and long-term patency rate were 30.8 and 96.7%. The early DJUS dysfunction rates were similar in primary and secondary DJUS placements (30.7 and 31.1%, P = 0.950). The long-term patency rates were similar in primary and secondary groups (96.2 and 97.9%, P = 0.928). The amount of blood retained in the collecting system between primary and secondary groups was not significantly different. The early DJUS dysfunction rate significantly increased with increasing blood retention.

Conclusions

The early DJUS dysfunction rates and long-term patency are similar in primary and secondary DJUS placement. However, the early DJUS dysfunction rate can be increased by increasing the blood retention in the collecting system.

Keywords

Ureteral obstruction Ureteral catheters Urinary catheterization Nephrostomy Percutaneous Radiology Interventional 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All contributing authors have no conflicts of interest to declare regarding this study.

Ethic Approval

For this type of retrospective study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Gasparini M, Carroll P, Stoller M. Palliative percutaneous and endoscopic urinary diversion for malignant ureteral obstruction. Urology. 1991;38:408–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carrafiello G, Laganà D, Lumia D, et al. Direct primary or secondary percutaneous ureteral stenting: what is the most compliant option in patients with malignant ureteral obstructions? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2007;30:974–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Watson GM, Patel U. Primary antegrade ureteric stenting: prospective experience and cost-effectiveness analysis in 50 ureters. Clin Radiol. 2001;56:568–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chye RW, Lickiss JN. Palliative care in bilateral malignant ureteric obstruction. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994;23:197–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uthappa MC, Cowan NC. Retrograde or antegrade double-pigtail stent placement for malignant ureteric obstruction? Clin Radiol. 2005;60:608–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harding JR. Percutaneous antegrade ureteric stent insertion in malignant disease. J R Soc Med. 1993;86:511–3.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hausegger KA, Portugaller HR. Percutaneous nephrostomy and antegrade ureteral stenting: technique-indications-complications. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:2016–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patel U, Abubacker MZ. Ureteral stent placement without postprocedural nephrostomy tube: experience in 41 patients. Radiology. 2004;230:435–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Soh KC, Tay KH, Tan BS, Mm Htoo A, Hg Lo R, Lin SE. Is the routine check nephrostogram following percutaneous antegrade ureteric stent placement necessary? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008;31:604–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tolley D. Ureteric stents, far from ideal. The Lancet. 2000;356:872–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dyer RB, Chen MY, Zagoria RJ, Regan JD, Hood CG, Kavanagh PV. Complications of ureteral stent placement. Radiographics. 2002;22:1005–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dyer RB, Assimos DG, Regan JD. Update on interventional uroradiology. Urol Clin North Am. 1997;24:623–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spies JB, Bakal CW, Burke DR, et al. Standards for interventional radiology. Standards of Practice Committee of the Society of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1991;2:59–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seo Yeon Youn
    • 1
  • Jung Suk Oh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hae Giu Lee
    • 1
  • Byung Gil Choi
    • 1
  • Ho Jong Chun
    • 1
  • Eu Hyun Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations