Use of a temporary ureteral drainage stent after uncomplicated ureteroscopy: results from a phase II clinical trial.

PURPOSE An indwelling ureteral stent is commonly placed for 48 hours after uncomplicated ureteroscopy to maintain drainage and prevent postoperative complications. A propriety temporary ureteral drainage stent (TUDS, Boston Scientific/Microvasive, Natick, Massachusetts) was developed to satisfy this goal with the added advantages of biodegradability and spontaneous passage. We evaluated TUDS performance in a patient population. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 88 patients at 6 centers were selected for TUDS placement. Device safety as well as effectiveness, defined as adequate intervention-free drainage for 48 hours with the maintenance of ureteral position, were the primary study end points. Secondary end points consisted of the time required to eliminate TUDS from the body, tolerability of device presence and passage, and overall patient satisfaction with the stent. RESULTS A single patient was excluded from primary end point analysis because of inadequate day 2 evaluation, resulting in an overall stent effectiveness rate of 78.2% (68 of 87 patients). Primary end point failure occurred in the remaining 19 patients (21.8%) with early stent extrusion in 17 and intervention required in 2 others within 48 hours of stent placement (cystoscopy and intravenous analgesia in 1, and intravenous analgesia alone in 1). There were no adverse clinical sequelae in 16 patients who experienced early extrusion with only 1 requiring intravenous pain medication. Stent fragments were retained beyond 3 months in 3 patients, of whom 2 were treated in a minimally invasive manner with shock wave lithotripsy, while 1 required ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy to clear the residual fragments. Median time to stent elimination from the ureter and from the body was 8 and 15 days, respectively. Overall 71 of the 80 patients (89%) reported satisfaction with TUDS. CONCLUSIONS The concept of a self-degrading internal ureteral stent represents a new paradigm in ureteral drainage. TUDS combines adequate ureteral drainage and patient satisfaction after uncomplicated ureteroscopy, eliminating the need for stent removal.

[1]  H. Mardis,et al.  Ureteral stents. Materials. , 1988, The Urologic clinics of North America.

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

[3]  R. Finney,et al.  Experience with new double J ureteral catheter stent. , 1978, The Journal of urology.

[4]  C. Kane,et al.  Current management of severely encrusted ureteral stents with a large associated stone burden. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

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

[6]  N P Gupta,et al.  Severely encrusted polyurethane ureteral stents: management and analysis of potential risk factors. , 2001, Urology.

[7]  M. Shalev,et al.  The indwelling ureteric stent: a ‘friendly’ procedure with unfriendly high morbidity , 2000, BJU international.

[8]  R. Breau,et al.  Optimal prevention and management of proximal ureteral stent migration and remigration. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[9]  G. Oldani,et al.  Encrustation and stone formation: complication of indwelling ureteral stents. , 1985, Urology.

[10]  J. Pryor,et al.  Comparison of symptom characteristics of indwelling ureteral catheters. , 1991, The Journal of urology.

[11]  J. Richie,et al.  The effects of various indwelling ureteral catheter materials on the normal canine ureter. , 1988, The Journal of urology.

[12]  J. Chin,et al.  Retrieval of proximally migrated ureteral stents. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[13]  A. Rané,et al.  Have stent-related symptoms anything to do with placement technique? , 2001, Journal of endourology.

[14]  S. Pollard,et al.  Symptoms arising from Double-J ureteral stents. , 1988, The Journal of urology.

[15]  J. Talati,et al.  Physician responsibility for removal of implants: the case for a computerized program for tracking overdue double-J stents. , 2000, Techniques in urology.

[16]  M. Ruutu,et al.  Biocompatibility of various indwelling double-J stents. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[17]  G. Preminger,et al.  Evaluation Of A Dissolvable Ureteral Drainage Stent In A Swine Model , 2002 .

[18]  Irani,et al.  Symptom characteristics and the development of tolerance with time in patients with indwelling double‐pigtail ureteric stents , 1999, BJU international.

[19]  R. Riehle,et al.  Morbidity associated with indwelling internal ureteral stents after shock wave lithotripsy. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[20]  J. Richie,et al.  Indwelling double-J ureteral stents for temporary and permanent urinary drainage: experience with 87 patients. , 1984, The Journal of urology.

[21]  B. Saltzman Ureteral Stents: Indications, Variation and Complications , 1989 .

[22]  D. Bagley,et al.  Ureteroscopic retrieval of proximallylocated ureteral stents , 1991 .

[23]  K. Cummings,et al.  Experience with indwelling ureteral stent catheters. , 1976, The Journal of urology.