Advertisement

Ureteroscopy pp 199-206 | Cite as

Ureteral Stents

  • Ben H. ChewEmail author
  • Ryan F. Paterson
  • Dirk Lange
Chapter
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)

Abstract

Ureteral stents are commonly used in urology to splint an anastomosis or provide drainage of the upper tract. This chapter discusses current stent materials including coatings and drug-elution, the methods used to improve stent symptoms including choosing the correct stent length and potential future technologies including new materials, coatings, and drug-elution. Briefly, there is evidence that stents are not routinely necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopy. Patients without stents may have significantly less symptoms that those who are stented after ureteroscopy. Infection rates are relatively uncommon and preoperative antibiotics are warranted but there is little evidence for continued antibiotics thereafter. Stent-related biofilms can help create the infection and there are novel coatings and investigations to understand and prevent the development of these biofilms. Almost all patients experience discomfort and stent symptoms. Drug-eluting stents such as ketorolac have been placed into stents to reduce discomfort. There is good evidence that choosing the correct length of stent is most helpful in preventing stent symptoms. Orally administered alpha blockers provide significant reduction in symptoms of the lower tract related to ureteral stents. One day, a new design, possibly coupled with a new biomaterial will help reduce patient symptoms.

Keywords

Botulinum Toxin Bacterial Adhesion Stent Insertion Ureteral Stents Alpha Blocker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA. Campbell-Walsh urology. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2012.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Ba’adani T, Ghilan A, El-Nono I, Alwan M, Bingadhi A. Whether post-ureteroscopy stenting is necessary or not? Saudi Med J. 2006;27(6):845–8 [Randomized Controlled Trial].PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen YT, Chen J, Wong WY, Yang SS, Hsieh CH, Wang CC. Is ureteral stenting necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy? A prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2002;167(5):1977–80 [Clinical Trial Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dominguez J, Clase CM, Mahalati K, MacDonald AS, McAlister VC, Belitsky P, et al. Is routine ureteric stenting needed in kidney transplantation? A randomized trial. Transplantation. 2000;70(4):597–601 [Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hussein A, Rifaat E, Zaki A, Abol-Nasr M. Stenting versus non-stenting after non-complicated ureteroscopic manipulation of stones in bilharzial ureters. Int J Urol. 2006;13(7):886–90 [Randomized Controlled Trial].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Isen K, Bogatekin S, Em S, Ergin H, Kilic V. Is routine ureteral stenting necessary after uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy for lower ureteral stones larger than 1 cm? Urol Res. 2008;36(2):115–9 [Randomized Controlled Trial].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mangus RS, Haag BW. Stented versus nonstented extravesical ureteroneocystostomy in renal transplantation: a metaanalysis. Am J Transplant. 2004;4(11):1889–96 [Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borboroglu PG, Amling CL, Schenkman NS, Monga M, Ward JF, Piper NY, et al. Ureteral stenting after ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a multi-institutional prospective randomized controlled study assessing pain, outcomes and complications. J Urol. 2001;166(5):1651–7 [Clinical Trial Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, Non-P.H.S.].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nabi G, Cook J, N’Dow J, McClinton S. Outcomes of stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2007;334(7593):572 [Meta-Analysis Review].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Allaf ME, Matlaga BR. The effect of ureteral stent placement on post-ureteroscopy complications: a meta-analysis. Urology. 2008;71(5):796–800 [Meta-Analysis].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley Jr FX, Timoney AG, Barry MJ. Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol. 2003;169(3):1065–9. discussion 9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Akay AF, Aflay U, Gedik A, Sahin H, Bircan MK. Risk factors for lower urinary tract infection and bacterial stent colonization in patients with a double J ureteral stent. Int Urol Nephrol. 2007;39(1):95–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Al-Ghazo MA, Ghalayini IF, Matani YS, El-Radaideh KM, Haddad HI. The risk of bacteriuria and ureteric stent colonization in immune-compromised patients with double J stent insertion. Int Urol Nephrol. 2010;42(2):343–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kehinde EO, Rotimi VO, Al-Hunayan A, Abdul-Halim H, Boland F, Al-Awadi KA. Bacteriology of urinary tract infection associated with indwelling J ureteral stents. J Endourol. 2004;18(9):891–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wolf Jr JS, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR, Hollenbeck BK, Pearle MS, Schaeffer AJ. Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol. 2008;179(4):1379–90 [Practice Guideline].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Canales BK, Higgins L, Markowski T, Anderson L, Li QA, Monga M. Presence of five conditioning film proteins are highly associated with early stent encrustation. J Endourol. 2009;23(9):1437–42 [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sabbuba N, Hughes G, Stickler DJ. The migration of Proteus mirabilis and other urinary tract pathogens over Foley catheters. BJU Int. 2002;89(1):55–60 [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chew BH, Knudsen BE, Nott L, Pautler SE, Razvi H, Amann J, et al. Pilot study of ureteral movement in stented patients: first step in understanding dynamic ureteral anatomy to improve stent comfort. J Endourol. 2007;21(9):1069–75 [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elwood CN, Lange D, Nadeau R, Seney S, Summers K, Chew BH, et al. Novel in vitro model for studying ureteric stent-induced cell injury. BJU Int. 2010;105(9):1318–23 [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Al-Kandari AM, Al-Shaiji TF, Shaaban H, Ibrahim HM, Elshebiny YH, Shokeir AA. Effects of proximal and distal ends of double-J ureteral stent position on postprocedural symptoms and quality of life: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol. 2007;21(7):698–702 [Randomized Controlled Trial].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Shoma AM, Eraky I, El-Kenawy MR, El-Kappany HA. Self-retaining ureteral stents: analysis of factors responsible for patients’ discomfort. J Endourol. 2006;20(1):33–7 [Comparative Study].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jeon SS, Choi YS, Hong JH. Determination of ideal stent length for endourologic surgery. J Endourol. 2007;21(8):906–10 [Clinical Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hruby GW, Ames CD, Yan Y, Monga M, Landman J. Correlation of ureteric length with anthropometric variables of surface body habitus. BJU Int. 2007;99(5):1119–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ho CH, Chen SC, Chung SD, Lee YJ, Chen J, Yu HJ, et al. Determining the appropriate length of a double-pigtail ureteral stent by both stent configurations and related symptoms. J Endourol. 2008;22(7):1427–31 [Evaluation Studies].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Norris RD, Sur RL, Springhart WP, Marguet CG, Mathias BJ, Pietrow PK, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled comparison of extended release oxybutynin versus phenazopyridine for the management of postoperative ureteral stent discomfort. Urology. 2008;71(5):792–5 [Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beddingfield R, Pedro RN, Hinck B, Kreidberg C, Feia K, Monga M. Alfuzosin to relieve ureteral stent discomfort: a prospective, randomized, placebo controlled study. J Urol. 2009;181(1):170–6 [Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Damiano R, Autorino R, De Sio M, Giacobbe A, Palumbo IM, D’Armiento M. Effect of tamsulosin in preventing ureteral stent-related morbidity: a prospective study. J Endourol. 2008;22(4):651–6 [Randomized Controlled Trial].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang CJ, Huang SW, Chang CH. Effects of tamsulosin on lower urinary tract symptoms due to double-J stent: a prospective study. Urol Int. 2009;83(1):66–9 [Randomized Controlled Trial].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yakoubi R, Lemdani M, Monga M, Villers A, Koenig P. Is there a role for alpha-blockers in ureteral stent-related symptoms? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2011;186(3):928–34 [Meta-Analysis Review].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gupta M, Patel T, Xavier K, Maruffo F, Lehman D, Walsh R, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of periureteral botulinum toxin type A injection for ureteral stent pain reduction. J Urol. 2010;183(2):598–602 [Randomized Controlled Trial].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Joshi HB, Newns N, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley Jr FX, Timoney AG. Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire: development and validation of a multidimensional quality of life measure. J Urol. 2003;169(3):1060–4 [Validation Studies].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Joshi HB, Chitale SV, Nagarajan M, Irving SO, Browning AJ, Biyani CS, et al. A prospective randomized single-blind comparison of ureteral stents composed of firm and soft polymer. J Urol. 2005;174(6):2303–6 [Randomized Controlled Trial].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lennon GM, Thornhill JA, Sweeney PA, Grainger R, McDermott TE, Butler MR. ‘Firm’ versus ‘soft’ double pigtail ureteric stents: a randomised blind comparative trial. Eur Urol. 1995;28(1):1–5 [Clinical Trial Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial].PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Davenport K, Kumar V, Collins J, Melotti R, Timoney AG, Keeley Jr FX. New ureteral stent design does not improve patient quality of life: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol. 2011;185(1):175–8 [Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Venkatesh R, Landman J, Minor SD, Lee DI, Rehman J, Vanlangendonck R, et al. Impact of a double-pigtail stent on ureteral peristalsis in the porcine model: initial studies using a novel implantable magnetic sensor. J Endourol. 2005;19(2):170–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kinn AC, Lykkeskov-Andersen H. Impact on ureteral peristalsis in a stented ureter. An experimental study in the pig. Urol Res. 2002;30(4):213–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Patel U, Kellett MJ. Ureteric drainage and peristalsis after stenting studied using colour Doppler ultrasound. Br J Urol. 1996;77(4):530–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Constantinou CE, Granato Jr JJ, Govan DE. Dynamics of the upper urinary tract: accommodations in the rate and stroke volume of ureteral peristalsis as a response to transient alteration in urine flow rate. Urol Int. 1974;29(4):249–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Constantinou CE, Djurhuus JC. Pyeloureteral dynamics in the intact and chronically obstructed multicalyceal kidney. Am J Physiol. 1981;241(5):R398–411 [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.].PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lang RJ, Davidson ME, Exintaris B. Pyeloureteral motility and ureteral peristalsis: essential role of sensory nerves and endogenous prostaglandins. Exp Physiol. 2002;87(2):129–46 [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t Review].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mendelsohn C. Functional obstruction: the renal pelvis rules. J Clin Invest. 2004;113(7):957–9 [Comment].PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Natalin RA, Hruby GW, Okhunov Z, Singh H, Phillips CK, Humphrey PA, et al. Pilot study evaluating ureteric physiological changes with a novel ‘ribbon stent’ design using electromyographic and giant magnetoresistive sensors. BJU Int. 2009;103(8):1128–31 [Evaluation Studies].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mardis HK, Kroeger RM. Ureteral stents. Materials. Urol Clin North Am. 1988;15(3):471–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tunney MM, Keane PF, Gorman SP. Assessment of urinary tract biomaterial encrustation using a modified Robbins device continuous flow model. J Biomed Mater Res. 1997;38(2):87–93 [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Watterson JD, Cadieux PA, Stickler D, Reid G, Denstedt JD. Swarming of Proteus mirabilis over ureteral stents: a comparative assessment. J Endourol. 2003;17(7):523–7 [In Vitro].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jones DS, Garvin CP, Gorman SP. Relationship between biomedical catheter surface properties and lubricity as determined using textural analysis and multiple regression analysis. Biomaterials. 2004;25(7–8):1421–8 [Comparative Study Evaluation Studies].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chew BH, Cadieux PA, Reid G, Denstedt JD. In-vitro activity of triclosan-eluting ureteral stents against common bacterial uropathogens. J Endourol. 2006;20(11):949–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cadieux PA, Chew BH, Nott L, Seney S, Elwood CN, Wignall GR, et al. Use of triclosan-eluting ureteral stents in patients with long-term stents. J Endourol. 2009;23(7):1187–94 [Clinical Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lange D, Elwood CN, Choi K, Hendlin K, Monga M, Chew BH. Uropathogen interaction with the surface of urological stents using different surface properties. J Urol. 2009;182(3):1194–200 [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wignall GR, Goneau LW, Chew BH, Denstedt JD, Cadieux PA. The effects of triclosan on uropathogen susceptibility to clinically relevant antibiotics. J Endourol. 2008;22(10):2349–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chew BH, Davoudi H, Li J, Denstedt JD. An in vivo porcine evaluation of the safety, bioavailability, and tissue penetration of a ketorolac drug-eluting ureteral stent designed to improve comfort. J Endourol. 2010;24(6):1023–9 [Evaluation Studies].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Krambeck AE, Walsh RS, Denstedt JD, Preminger GM, Li J, Evans JC, et al. A novel drug eluting ureteral stent: a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a ketorolac loaded ureteral stent. J Urol. 2010;183(3):1037–42 [Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urologic SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations