Comparison of silicone versus polyurethane ureteral stents: a prospective controlled study

Nariman Gadzhiev, Dmitry Gorelov, Vigen Malkhasyan, Gagik Akopyan, Revaz Harchelava, Denis Mazurenko, Christina Kosmala, Zhamshid Okhunov, Sergei Petrov, Nariman Gadzhiev, Dmitry Gorelov, Vigen Malkhasyan, Gagik Akopyan, Revaz Harchelava, Denis Mazurenko, Christina Kosmala, Zhamshid Okhunov, Sergei Petrov

Abstract

Background: Approximately 80% of patients with indwelling ureteral stents experience stent related symptoms (SRS). We believe SRS can be reduced through altering the composition of ureteral stents to a less firm material. Therefore, we aim to compare modern silicone and polyurethane ureteral stents in terms of SRS intensity and safety.

Methods: From June 2018 to October 2018, patients from two distinct clinical centers were prospectively enrolled in the study and stratified (non-randomly) into either control group A, patients who received polyurethane stents (Rüsch, Teleflex), or experimental group B, patients who received silicone stents (Cook Medical). Each participant completed a survey 1 h after stent insertion, in the middle of the stent dwelling period, and before stent removal or ureteroscopy noting body pain and overactive bladder via the visual analog scale pain (VASP) and overactive bladder (OAB) awareness tool, respectively. Additionally, successfulness of stent placement, hematuria, number of unplanned visits, and stent encrustation rates were assessed within each group.

Results: A total of 50 patients participated in the study, control group A consisted of 20 patients and experimental group B consisted of 30 patients. Participants in group B, silicone ureteral stents, demonstrated significantly lower mean values of VASP 2 weeks prior to stent removal and promptly before stent removal (p = 0.023 and p = 0.014, respectively). No other comparisons between the two groups were statistically significant.

Conclusions: Compared to polyurethane ureteral stents, silicone ureteral stents are associated with lower body pain intensity assessed by VASP 2 weeks before stent removal and at the time of stent removal.

Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials NCT04000178. Retrospectively registered on June 26, 2019.

Keywords: Polyurethane; Quality of life; Silicone; Stent-related symptoms; Ureteral stent.

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declare(s) that they have no competing interests. Dr. Zhamshid Okhunov, as a member of the editorial board (Section Editor) of this journal, had no role in the handling this manuscript.

References

    1. Finney RP. Experience with new double J ureteral catheter stent. J Urol. 1978;120:678–681. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)57326-7.
    1. 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.
    1. Joshi HB, Okeke A, Newns N, et al. Characterization of urinary symptoms in patients with ureteral stents. Urology. 2002;59:511–516. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01644-2.
    1. Liu Q, Liao B, Zhang R, et al. Combination therapy only shows short-term superiority over monotherapy on ureteral stent-related symptoms – outcome from a randomized controlled trial. BMC Urol. 2016;16:66. doi: 10.1186/s12894-016-0186-y.
    1. Pilcher JM, Patel U. Choosing the correct length of ureteric stent: a formula based on the Patient’s height compared with direct ureteric measurement. Clin Radiol. 2002;57:59–62. doi: 10.1053/crad.2001.0737.
    1. Miyaoka R, Monga M. Ureteral stent discomfort: etiology and management. Indian journal of urology: IJU: journal of the Urological Society of India. 2009;25:455–460. doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.57910.
    1. Kawahara T, Ito H, Terao H, et al. Changing to a loop-type ureteral stent decreases patients’ stent-related symptoms. Urol Res. 2012;40:763–767. doi: 10.1007/s00240-012-0500-4.
    1. Riedl CR, Witkowski M, Plas E, Pflueger H. Heparin coating reduces encrustation of ureteral stents: a preliminary report. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2002;19:507–510. doi: 10.1016/S0924-8579(02)00097-3.
    1. Mosayyebi A, Vijayakumar A, Yue QY, et al. Engineering solutions to ureteral stents: material, coating and design. Central Eur J Urol. 2017;70:270–274.
    1. Gao Y, Liang H, Liu L et al. Comparison of alpha-blockers and Antimuscarinics in improving ureteral stent-related symptoms: a meta-analysis. Urol J. 2019;16(3):307–311.
    1. Tadros NN, Bland L, Legg E, et al. A single dose of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prevents severe pain after ureteric stent removal: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BJU Int. 2013;111:101–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11214.x.
    1. Tae BS, Cho S, Jeon BJ, et al. Does mirabegron relieve ureteric stent-related discomfort? A prospective, randomized, multicentre study. BJU Int. 2018;122:866–872. doi: 10.1111/bju.14416.
    1. Yoshida T, Inoue T, Taguchi M, et al. Efficacy and safety of complete intra-ureteral stent placement versus conventional stent placement in relieving ureteral stent-related symptoms: A randomized, prospective, single-blinded, multicenter clinical trial. J Urol. 2019;202(1):164–170.
    1. Gorman SP, Jones DS, Bonner MC, et al. Mechanical performance of polyurethane ureteral stents in vitro and ex vivo. Biomaterials. 1997;18:1379–1383. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00070-7.
    1. Venkatesan N, Shroff S, Jayachandran K, Doble M. Polymers as ureteral stents. J Endourol. 2010;24:191–198. doi: 10.1089/end.2009.0516.
    1. Denstedt JD, Wollin TA, Reid G. Biomaterials used in urology: current issues of biocompatibility, infection, and encrustation*. J Endourol. 1998;12:493–500. doi: 10.1089/end.1998.12.493.
    1. Beiko DT, Knudsen BE, Denstedt JD. Advances in ureteral stent design. J Endourol. 2003;17:195–199. doi: 10.1089/089277903765444294.
    1. K. S. Coyne, T. Zyczynski, M. K. Margolis, V. Elinoff, and R. G. Roberts, “Validation of an overactive bladder awareness tool for use in primary care settings.,” Adv Ther, 22, no. 4, pp. 381–394.
    1. Bijur PE, Silver W, John Gallagher E. EDUCATIONAL ADVANCES reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. 2001.
    1. Louis TA, Zeger SL. Effective communication of standard errors and confidence intervals. Biostatistics. 2009;10:1–2. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxn014.
    1. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron. 2001;4:9–18.
    1. Zimskind PD, Fetter TR, Wilkerson JL. Clinical use of long-term indwelling silicone rubber ureteral splints inserted cystoscopically. J Urol. 1967;97:840–844. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)63130-6.
    1. Rao MV, Polcari AJ, Turk TM. Updates on the use of ureteral stents: focus on the resonance® stent. Med Devices (Auckl) 2010;4:11–15.
    1. Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, Macdonagh RP, et al. Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol. 2003;169:1065–1069. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000048980.33855.90.
    1. Lennon GM, Thornhill JA, Sweeney PA, et al. “Firm” versus “soft” double pigtail ureteric stents: a randomised blind comparative trial. Eur Urol. 1995;28:1–5. doi: 10.1159/000475010.
    1. Wiseman O, Letendre J, Cloutier J, et al (2018) Effects of silicone hydrocoated double loop ureteral stent on symptoms and quality of life in patients undergoing FURS for kidney stones a comparative randomized multicenter clinical study.
    1. Hb J, Sv C, Nagarajan M, et al. A prospective randomized single-blind comparison of ureteral stents composed of firm and soft polymer. J Urol. 2005;174:2303–2306. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000181815.63998.5f.
    1. Bregg K, Riehle RA. Morbidity associated with indwelling internal ureteral stents after shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1989;141:510–512. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)40875-5.
    1. Pryor JL, Langley MJ, Jenkins AD. Comparison of symptom characteristics of indwelling ureteral catheters. J Urol. 1991;145:719–722. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)38433-1.
    1. 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;38:87–93. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199722)38:2<87::AID-JBM2>;2-C.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren