Skip to main content

Ureteric stenting with magnetic retrieval: an alternative to traditional methods



Ureteric stents are frequently placed following endo-urological procedures. These stents cause significant morbidity for patients. Standard ureteric stents are removed by flexible cystoscopy. This procedure can be unpleasant for patients and requires additional resources. A newly designed magnetic stent allows removal in an outpatient setting. The aim of our study is to compare the magnetic stent and standard ureteric stents with regard to morbidity, pain on stent removal and cost-effectiveness.


This study was carried out across two sites between September 2016 and July 2017. In site A, a magnetic stent (Urotech, Black-Star®) is removed by magnetic retrieval device. Fifty consecutive patients completed the validated Ureteric Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) and visual analogue scale (VAS) at the time of stent removal. On site B, a soft polyurethane stent (Cook Universa) was removed by flexible cystoscopy. Fifty patients were identified retrospectively and completed questionnaires by post. Cost analysis was also performed.


One hundred questionnaires were included for analysis. No significant difference in stent morbidity as assessed by the USSQ was shown between both groups. Median duration of stenting was significantly shorter in the magnetic stent group (5.5 versus 21.5 days, p < 0.001). Mean pain on stent removal was significantly less with magnetic retrieval (2.9 versus 3.9, p < 0.05). Complication rates were similar in both groups. Cost analysis showed a cost saving of €203 per patient with the magnetic stent group.


Magnetic stents cause similar morbidity for patients compared with standard stents removed by flexible cystoscopy; they are associated with less pain at removal and are cost saving.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  1. Finney RP (1978) Experience with new double J ureteral catheter stent. J Urol 120(6):678–681

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nabi G, Cook J, N’Dow J, McClinton S (2007) Outcomes of stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 334(7593):572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Auge BK, Sarvis JA, L’Esperance JO, Preminger GM (2007) Practice patterns of ureteral stenting after routine ureteroscopic stone surgery: a survey of practicing urologists. J Endourol 21(11):1287–1291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Harmon WJ, Sershon PD, Blute ML, Patterson DE, Segura JW (1997) Ureteroscopy: current practice and long-term complications. J Urol 157(1):28–32

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bockholt NA, Wild TT, Gupta A, Tracy CR (2012) Ureteric stent placement with extraction string: no strings attached? BJU Int 110(11 Pt C):E1069–E1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rassweiler MC, Michel MS, Ritter M, Honeck P (2017) Magnetic ureteral stent removal without cystoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. J Endourol 31:762–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rodriguez-Rubio FSGGSSCEF (2009) Patient tolerance during outpatient flexible cystoscopy--a prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing plain lubrication and lidocaine gel. Scand J Urol Nephrol 38(6):477–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Oliver R, Wells H, Traxer O, Knoll T, Aboumarzouk O, Biyani CS et al (2016) Ureteric stents on extraction strings: a systematic review of literature. Urolithiasis 46(2): 129–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Macaluso JN Jr, Deutsch JS, Goodman JR, Appell RA, Prats LJ Jr, Wahl P (1989) The use of the Magnetip double-J ureteral stent in urological practice. J Urol 142(3):701–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG, Barry MJ (2003) Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 169(3):1065–1069 discussion 9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lange D, Bidnur S, Hoag N, Chew BH (2015) Ureteral stent-associated complications--where we are and where we are going. Nat Rev Urol 12(1):17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Leibovici D, Cooper A, Lindner A, Ostrowsky R, Kleinmann J, Velikanov S, Cipele H, Goren E, Siegel YI (2005) Ureteral stents: morbidity and impact on quality of life. Isr Med Assoc J 7(8):491–494

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Aaronson DS, Walsh TJ, Smith JF, Davies BJ, Hsieh MH, Konety BR (2009) Meta-analysis: does lidocaine gel before flexible cystoscopy provide pain relief? BJU Int 104(4):506–509 discussion 9-10

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Abdulmajed Mi SIS (2011) Flexible cystoscopy removal of ureteric stent: is it painful? Br J Med Surg Urol 4(5):223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Damiano R, Autorino R, Esposito C, Cantiello F, Sacco R, de Sio M et al (2004) Stent positioning after ureteroscopy for urinary calculi: the question is still open. Eur Urol 46(3):381–387 discussion 7–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Scarneciu I, Lupu S, Pricop C, Scarneciu C (2015) Morbidity and impact on quality of life in patients with indwelling ureteral stents: a 10-year clinical experience. Pak J Med Sci 31(3):522–526

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Chew BH, Lange D (2016) Advances in ureteral stent development. Curr Opin Urol 26(3):277–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sevcenco S, Eredics K, Lusuardi L, Klingler HC (2018) Evaluation of pain perception associated with use of the magnetic-end ureteric double-J stent for short-term ureteric stenting. World J Urol 36(3):475–479

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Barnes KT, Bing MT, Tracy CR (2014) Do ureteric stent extraction strings affect stent-related quality of life or complications after ureteroscopy for urolithiasis: a prospective randomised control trial. BJU Int 113(4):605–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim DJ, Son JH, Jang SH, Lee JW, Cho DS, Lim CH (2015) Rethinking of ureteral stent removal using an extraction string; what patients feel and what is patients’ preference? : a randomized controlled study. BMC Urol 15:121

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



JA O’Kelly: project development, data collection/management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing

UM Haroon: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing

A Rauf: data collection/management

KJ Breen: project management/manuscript writing/editing

BB Maguire: project development

IA Cheema: project development

L McLornan: project development

JC Forde: project development, manuscript writing/editing

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John A. O’Kelly.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

This study has been approved by the ethical review board at both Connolly and Beaumont Hospitals and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Kelly, J.A., Haroon, U.M., Rauf, A.J. et al. Ureteric stenting with magnetic retrieval: an alternative to traditional methods. Ir J Med Sci 189, 289–293 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Double J stent
  • Flexible cystoscopy
  • JJ stent
  • Magnetic stent
  • Stent symptoms
  • Ureteric stent
  • Ureteroscopy