Initial clinical experience with full-length metal ureteral stents for obstructive ureteral stenosis
- 137 Downloads
Long-term ureteral stenting is used to ensure urinary drainage if a reconstructive approach or a release of an extrinsic obstruction is not possible. In this contribution, a long-term experience with a new full-length, metal indwelling stent is presented.
Fourteen patients with ureteral obstruction received full metal indwelling stents in 18 collecting systems (benign disease in 5 and malignant disease in 13). Stent placement was performed cystoscopically under fluoroscopic guidance. Follow-up was done every 3 months with ultrasonographic examination, creatinine levels, and a visual analog pain score.
Eight stents were removed, whereas eight are still in situ. One patient without stent-related problems died because of progressive rectal cancer 9 months after bilateral stent insertion. Mean stent duration (8 stents still in situ) is 8.6 months, whereas mean stent duration for benign and malignant disease is 11.8 (median 13) and 7.3 (median 6) months, respectively (p < 0.05). All removed stents were extracted endoscopically without any problems and had no incrustation except two. Neither migration nor mechanical damage was observed.
This novel stent is easy to insert and remove. It is an option for patients in which a surgical reconstruction of the obstructed ureter is not possible. Stents have been developed further and are now available in various lengths. This might result in a reduction of problems associated with inadequate stent length and should increase patient comfort and stent durability.
KeywordsUreteral obstruction Endourology Metal stent
- 4.Ku JH, Lee SW, Jeon HG, Kim HH, Oh SJ (2004) Percutaneous nephrostomy versus indwelling ureteral stents in the management of extrinsic ureteral obstruction in advanced malignancies: are there differences? Urology 64:5Google Scholar
- 5.Joshi HB, Adams S, Obadeyi OO, Rao PN (2001) Nephrostomy tube or ‘JJ’ ureteric stent in ureteric obstruction: assessment of patient perspectives using quality-of-life survey and utility analysis. Eur Urol 39:6Google Scholar