In vivo evaluation of the third generation biodegradable stent: a novel approach to avoiding the forgotten stent syndrome.

PURPOSE Ureteral stents are prone to irritation, encrustation and infection, and they require additional procedures for removal. Furthermore, indwelling polymer stents are often forgotten with devastating consequences to the patient. We describe the degradation time, and physiological and histological responses elicited by a novel biodegradable ureteral stent in a porcine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 16 female Yorkshire pigs were used in the study. Ten biodegradable Uriprene™ stents and 6 biostable Polaris™ stents were cystoscopically inserted unilaterally in 2 groups of animals. Excretory urogram, and blood and urine tests were performed on different days until day 28. Biostable stents were removed on day 21. On day 28 all pigs underwent necropsy for microscopic and histological evaluation. RESULTS Nine of the 10 biodegradable stents (90%) degraded completely by 4 weeks, while 1 pig had 3 fragments smaller than 1.5 cm in the bladder. Excretory urogram showed equivalent drainage and significantly less hydronephrosis in biodegradable stented kidneys. Blood and urine parameters were similar in the 2 groups. A transient increase in serum creatinine on day 7 in 40% of the pigs with a degradable stent resolved by day 10. There were significantly fewer abnormal histological findings in the degradable stent group. We evaluated drainage characteristics in an unobstructed ureter and results may not be representative of what develops in obstructed ureters. CONCLUSIONS The third generation biodegradable stent is a safe, effective alternative to conventional polymer stents, resulting in equivalent drainage and less hydronephrosis.

[1]  D. Lange,et al.  Novel in vitro model for studying ureteric stent‐induced cell injury , 2010, BJU international.

[2]  R. Clayman,et al.  Evaluation of the use of a biodegradable ureteral stent after retrograde endopyelotomy in a porcine model. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[3]  S. Pautler,et al.  Pilot study of ureteral movement in stented patients: first step in understanding dynamic ureteral anatomy to improve stent comfort. , 2007, Journal of endourology.

[4]  Ladan Fazli,et al.  Investigation of a novel degradable ureteral stent in a porcine model. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[5]  A. El-Assmy,et al.  Self-retaining ureteral stents: analysis of factors responsible for patients' discomfort. , 2006, Journal of endourology.

[6]  D. Lifshitz,et al.  Predicting the success of retrograde stenting for managing ureteral obstruction. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[7]  A Heino,et al.  New bioabsorbable polylactide ureteral stent in the treatment of ureteral lesions: an experimental study. , 1999, Journal of endourology.

[8]  M. Monga,et al.  The forgotten indwelling ureteral stent: a urological dilemma. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[9]  S. Mulgaonkar,et al.  Urinary tract infection associated with ureteral stents in renal transplantation. , 1998, The Canadian journal of urology.

[10]  P. Kavanagh,et al.  Complications of ureteral stent placement. , 2002, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[11]  W. Różański,et al.  Relationship between urinary tract infection and self-retaining Double-J catheter colonization. , 2009, Journal of endourology.

[12]  M. Barry,et al.  Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[13]  P. Alken,et al.  [Success and failure with double J ureteral stent. Analysis of 107 cases]. , 1991, Journal d'urologie.

[14]  O. Nativ,et al.  Febrile complications following insertion of 100 double-J ureteral stents. , 2005, Journal of endourology.

[15]  P. Maheshwari,et al.  The indwelling ureteric stent: a ’friendly’ procedure with unfriendly high morbidity , 2000, BJU international.

[16]  H. Mosli,et al.  Vesicoureteral reflux in patients with double pigtail stents. , 1991, The Journal of urology.

[17]  Ben H. Chew,et al.  Next generation biodegradable ureteral stent in a yucatan pig model. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[18]  Pertti Törmälä,et al.  Drainage and antireflux characteristics of a biodegradable self-reinforced, self-expanding X-ray-positive poly-L,D-lactide spiral partial ureteral stent: an experimental study. , 2007, Journal of endourology.

[19]  Seung-June Oh,et al.  Characteristics of bacterial colonization and urinary tract infection after indwelling of double-J ureteral stent. , 2003, Urology.

[20]  James D Watterson,et al.  Use of a temporary ureteral drainage stent after uncomplicated ureteroscopy: results from a phase II clinical trial. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[21]  I Husain,et al.  Polyurethane internal ureteral stents in treatment of stone patients: morbidity related to indwelling times. , 1991, The Journal of urology.