World Journal of Urology

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 277–283 | Cite as

In vivo assessment of a novel biodegradable ureteral stent

  • Alexandre A. Barros
  • Carlos Oliveira
  • Ana J. Ribeiro
  • Riccardo Autorino
  • Rui L. Reis
  • Ana Rita C. DuarteEmail author
  • Estevão Lima
Original Article



To perform an in vivo assessment of a newly developed biodegradable ureteral stent (BUS) produced with natural-based polymers.


The BUS is based on a patented technology combining the injection process with the use of supercritical fluid technology. Study was conducted at ICVS—University of Minho (Braga, Portugal) and a total of ten domestic pigs were used. In seven animals, the experimental BUS stent was inserted, whereas in the remaining a commercially available stent was used (6-Fr Biosoft® duo stents, Porges Coloplast, Denmark). Post-stenting intravenous pyelogram was used to evaluate the degree of hydronephrosis. The in vivo stent degradation was measured as function of the weight loss. Moreover, the tensile properties of the BUS were tested during in vivo degradation. After maximum 10 days, animals were killed and necropsy was performed. Tissues were compared between the stented groups as well as between the non-stented contralateral ureters and stented ureters in each group. Biocompatibility was assessed by histopathological grading.


In all cases, the BUS was only visible during the first 24 h on X-ray, and in all cases the BUS was completely degraded in urine after 10 days, as confirmed on necropsy. During the degradation process, the mechanical properties of the BUS decreased, while the commercial ureteral stents remained constant. At all time-points after stent insertion, the level of hydronephrosis was minimal. Overall, animals stented with BUS had an average grade of hydronephrosis which was lower compared to the controls. The BUS showed better pathological conditions, and hence better biocompatibility when compared with commercial stents.


Notwithstanding the limitations of the present study, the in vivo testing of our novel natural origin polymer-based BUS suggests this device to feature homogeneous degradation, good urine drainage, and high biocompatibility. Next steps will be to increase its stability, and to improve the radiopacity without compromising its degradation. Ultimately, clinical studies will be required to determine the safety and feasibility of its use in humans.


Biodegradable Polymers Ureteral stent Ureteroscopy 



The research leading to these results has received funding from the ICVS/3B’s Associated Laboratory with the project reference POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007038, from the project “Novel smart and biomimetic materials for innovative regenerative medicine approaches” RL1—ABMR—NORTE-01-0124-FEDER-000016) cofinanced by North Portugal Regional Operational Programme (ON.2—O Novo Norte), under the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF), through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Alexandre Barros acknowledges his FCT PhD grant SFRH/BD/97203/2013. The authors acknowledge Teresa Oliveira and Tírcia C. Santos for the technical assistance on histopathology analysis.


  1. 1.
    Damiano R, Oliva A, Esposito C et al (2002) Early and late complications of double pigtail ureteral stent. Urol Int 69:136–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singh V, Srinivastava A, Kapoor R et al (2005) Can the complicated forgotten indwelling ureteric stents be lethal? Int Urol Nephrol 37:541–546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chew BH, Lange D (2016) Advances in ureteral stent development. Curr Opin Urol 26:277–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Olweny EO, Landman J, Andreoni C et al (2002) Evaluation of the use of a biodegradable ureteral stent after retrograde endopyelotomy in a porcine model. J Urol 167:2198–2202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chew BH, Paterson RF, Clinkscales KW et al (2013) In vivo evaluation of the third generation biodegradable stent: a novel approach to avoiding the forgotten stent syndrome. J Urol 189:719–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barros AA, Rita A, Duarte C et al (2015) Bioresorbable ureteral stents from natural origin polymers. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 103(3):608–617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kankala RK, Zhang YS, Wang SB, Lee CH, Chen AZ (2017) Supercritical fluid technology: an emphasis on drug delivery and related biomedical applications. Adv Healthc Mater. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chew BH, Knudsen BE, Nott L et al (2007) Pilot study of ureteral movement in stented patients: first step in understanding dynamic ureteral anatomy to improve stent comfort. J Endourol 21:1069–1075CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barros AA, Oliveira C, Lima E et al (2016) Gelatin-based biodegradable ureteral stents with enhanced mechanical properties. Appl Mater Today 5:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schlick RW, Planz K (1997) Potentially useful materials for biodegradable ureteric stents. Br J Urol 1997(80):908–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang MQ, Zou T, Huang YC et al (2014) Braided thin-walled biodegradable ureteral stent: preliminary evaluation in a canine model. Int J Urol 21:401–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hajdinjak T, Patel M, Papatsoris A, Masood J, Buchholz N, Birch M (2008) In vitro simulation of stent fracture mechanisms in ureteric nitinol wire stents. Urol Res 36(5):241–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Richter S, Ringel A, Shalev M et al (2000) The indwelling ureteric stent: a ‘friendly’ procedure with unfriendly high morbidity. BJU Int 85:408–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramsay JWA, Payne SR, Gosling PT et al (1985) The Effects of Double-J Stenting on Unobstructed Ureters—an Experimental and Clinical-Study. Br J Urol 57:630–634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Young S, Wong M, Tabata Y, Mikos AG (2005) Gelatin as a delivery vehicle for the controlled release of bioactive molecules. J Control Release 5 109(1–3):256–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elwood CN, Lange D, Nadeau R et al (2010) Novel in vitro model for studying ureteric stent-induced cell injury. BJU Int 105:1318–1323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandre A. Barros
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carlos Oliveira
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ana J. Ribeiro
    • 4
  • Riccardo Autorino
    • 5
  • Rui L. Reis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ana Rita C. Duarte
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Estevão Lima
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.3B´s Research Group-Biomaterials, Biodegradables and BiomimeticsUniversity of Minho, Headquarters of the European Institute of Excellence on Tissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineGuimarãesPortugal
  2. 2.ICVS/3B’s-T Government Associate LaboratoryBraga/GuimarãesPortugal
  3. 3.School of Health Sciences, Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS)University of MinhoBragaPortugal
  4. 4.University School of Vasco da GamaCoimbraPortugal
  5. 5.Division of UrologyVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations