Ureteral stents: in search of a rational choice

Nesterov S.N., Khanaliev B.V., Tevlin K.P., Barsegyan A.G., Kosarev E.I., Avakian S.K.

Background: Over the past decades, ureteral stenting has been widely used as a method of temporary or permanent urine diversion while obstruction of the upper urinary tract. This article is aimed at studying the rational choice of the ureteral stent depending on the clinical situation.

Objective: To review the literature of currently available data on the types of ureteral stents, their advantages and disadvantages, indications for their installation, as well as on early and late complications.

Methods: The article presents data from literature reviews and original articles from the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Elibrary databases by keywords: ureteral stents, ureteral stenting, types of ureteral stents, indications for ureteral stents.

Conclusions: Ureteral stents vary in length, diameter, number of loops, material, and coating. Due to the advantages of silicone stents, they are preferred in most cases. Ureteral stents may be installed in a large number of urological and non-urological diseases, as well as a prophylaxis of iatrogenic ureteral injury before surgical interventions as. A large number of possible complications requires the doctor to observe a patient with an installed ureteral stent for some time.

Today, the materials and designs of the ureteral stents are changing in accordance with clinical requirements. An ideal ureteral stent is a stent with the following characteristics: ease installation, replacement and removal, absence of stent-associated symptoms, absence of early and late complications (including allergic reactions), good visualization with x-ray and ultrasound examination and a low price. However, despite of the long period of use of the ureteral stents in urological practice still doesn`t exist ideal stents that meet these criteria. The goal of recent innovations in stent development is to create this ideal ureteral stent.

1. Borisov VV, Dzeranov NK. Mochekamennaya bolezn'. Terapiya bol'nykh kamnyami pochek i mochetochnikov. Uchebnoe posobie. Moscow; 2011. 96 p.

2. Donahue RP, Stamm AW, Gibbons RP, et al. Evolution of the ureteral stent: the pivotal role of the gibbons ureteral catheter. Urology. 2018;115:3–7. Doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.02.007.

3. Zolotukhin OV, Madykin YuYu, Fedorov AA. Evolution of upper urinary tract drainage method. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Surgery. 2019;12(3):199–202. Doi: 10.18499/2070-478X-2019-12-3-199-202.

4. Zimskind PD, Fetter TR, Wilkerson JL. Clinical use of long-term indwelling silicone rubber ureteral splints inserted cystoscopically. J Urol. 1967;97(5):840–844.

5. Hepperlen TW, Mardis HK, Kammandel H. Self-retained internal ureteral stents: a new approach. J Urol. 1978;119(6):731–734. Doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)57613-2.

6. Mosayyebi A, Manes C, Carugo D, Somani BK. Advances in Ureteral Stent Design and Materials. Curr Urol Rep. 2018;19(5):35. Doi: 10.1007/s11934-018-0779-y.

7. kidneystoners.org [Internet]. How is a ureteral stent placed? [cited 2020 Apr 29]. Available at: https://www.kidneystoners.org/surgery/how-is-a-ureteral-stent-placed/.

8. Erturk E, Sessions A, Joseph JV. Impact of ureteral stent diameter on symptoms and tolerability. J Endourol. 2003;17(2):59–62. Doi: 10.1089/08927790360587342.

9. Candela JV, Bellman GC. Ureteral stents: impact of diameter and composition on patient symptoms. J Endourol. 1997;11(1):45–47. Doi: 10.1089/end.1997.11.45.

10. Ho CH, Chen SC, Chung SD, et al. Determining the appropriate length of a double-pigtail ureteral stent by both stent configurations and related symptoms. J Endourol. 2008;22(7):1427–1431. Doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0037.

11. Rane A, Saleemi A, Cahill D, et al. Have stent-related symptoms anything to do with placement technique? J Endourol. 2001;15(7):741–745. Doi: 10.1089/08927790152596352.

12. Al-Kandari AM, Al-Shaiji TF, Shaaban H, et al. 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. Doi: 10.1089/end.2007.9949.

13. Sali GM, Joshi HB. Ureteric stents: overview of current clinical applications and economic implications. Int J Urol. 2019;27(1):7–15. Doi: 10.1111/iju.14119.

14. Dellis A, Joshi HB, Timoney AG, et al. Relief of stent related symptoms: review of engineering and pharmacological solutions. J Urol. 2010;184(4):1267–1272. Doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.043.

15. Glybochko PV, Aliayev YuG, Gazimiyev MA, et al. Memokath stents in the treatment of urinary tract obstructive diseases. Meditsinskii vestnik Bashkortostana. 2011;6(2):227–231.

16. Brotherhood H, Lange D, Chew BH. Advances in ureteral stents. Transl Androl Urol. 2014;3(3):314–319. Doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2014.06.06.

17. Duvdevani M, Chew BH, Denstedt JD. Minimizing symptoms in patients with ureteric stents. Curr Opin Urol. 2006;16(2):77–82. Doi: 10.1097/01.mou.0000193375.29942.0f.

18. Rao NP, Preminger GM, Kavanagh JP, editors. Urinary tract stone disease. London: Springer; 2011. Doi: 10.1007/978-1-84800-362-0.

19. Taylor WN, McDougall IT. Minimally invasive ureteral stent retrieval. J Urol. 2002;168(5):2020–2023. Doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000033964.15384.e2.

20. Hafron J, Ost MC, Tan BJ, et al. Novel dual-lumen ureteral stents provide better ureteral flow than single ureteral stent in ex vivo porcine kidney model of extrinsic ureteral obstruction. Urology. 2006;68(4):911–915. Doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.05.025.

21. Rosman BM, Barbosa JA, Passerotti CP, et al. Evaluation of a novel gel-based ureteral stent with biofilm-resistant characteristics. Int Urol Nephrol. 2014;46(6):1053–1058. Doi: 10.1007/s11255-013-0636-3.

22. Mucksavage P, Pick D, Haydel D, et al. An in vivo evaluation of a novel spiral cut flexible ureteral stent. Urology. 2012;79(3):733–737. Doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.10.062.

23. Lange D, Hoag NA, Poh BK, Chew BH. Drainage characteristics of the 3F MicroStent using a novel film occlusion anchoring mechanism. J Endourol. 2011;25(6):1051–1056. Doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0722.

24. Hadaschik BA, Paterson RF, Fazli L, et al. Investigation of a novel degradable ureteral stent in a porcine model. J Urol. 2008;180(3):1161–1166. Doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.003.

25. Chew BH, Lange D, Paterson RF, et al. Next generation biodegradable ureteral stent in a yucatan pig model. J Urol. 2010;183(2):765–771. Doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.09.073.

26. Cadieux PA, Chew BH, Nott L, et al. Use of triclosan-eluting ureteral stents in patients with long-term stents. J Endourol. 2009;23(7):1187–1194. Doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0437.

27. Minardi D, Cirioni O, Ghiselli R, et al. Efficacy of tigecycline and rifampin alone and in combination against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm infection in a rat model of ureteral stent. J Surg Res. 2012;176(1):1–6. Doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2011.05.002.

28. Zelichenko G, Steinberg D, Lorber G, et al. Prevention of initial biofilm formation on ureteral stents using a sustained releasing varnish containing chlorhexidine: in vitro study. J Endourol. 2013;27(3):333–337. Doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0193.

29. da Silva G, Boutros M, Wexner SD. Role of prophylactic ureteric stents in colorectal surgery. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2012;5(3):105–110. Doi: 10.1111/j.1758-5910.2012.00134.x.

30. Chandhoke PS, Barqawi AZ, Wernecke C, Chee-Awai RA. A randomized outcomes trial of ureteral stents for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of solitary kidney or proximal ureteral stones. J Urol. 2002;167(5):1981–1983. Doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)65067-7.

31. Gomes G, Nunes P, Castelo D, et al. Ureteric stent in renal transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2013;45(3):1099–1101. Doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2013.02.086.

32. LaBerge JM. The 27th annual Charles T. Dotter lecture: Data integration in interventional radiology: the pressing challenge of our time. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(8):1061–1067. Doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2011.04.007.

33. Darlington D, Anitha FS. Single session endoscopic removal of bilateral ureteric stents retained for three decades: a case report. Cureus. 2019;11(3):e4294. Doi: 10.7759/cureus.4294.