Indian Journal of Urology Users online:2204  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents 
COMMENTARY
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 27  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 305-306
 

Are metal ureteral stents indicated in cases of benign upper urinary tract obstruction?


University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

Date of Web Publication26-Sep-2011

Correspondence Address:
Petros Sountoulides
University of California, Irvine, CA
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.85419

Rights and Permissions

 

How to cite this article:
Sountoulides P. Are metal ureteral stents indicated in cases of benign upper urinary tract obstruction?. Indian J Urol 2011;27:305-6

How to cite this URL:
Sountoulides P. Are metal ureteral stents indicated in cases of benign upper urinary tract obstruction?. Indian J Urol [serial online] 2011 [cited 2019 Nov 23];27:305-6. Available from: http://www.indianjurol.com/text.asp?2011/27/3/305/85419


The placement of any type of stent in the ureter is probably one of the most common procedures in everyday urological care. The main indication for stent insertion is to maintain the patency of the upper urinary tract in cases of chronic or acute intrinsic or extrinsic obstruction of the upper urinary tract. Toward this goal, a variety of configurations, designs, and materials have been utilized since the first introduction of a ureteral "stent" in urological practice by Gibbons back in 1976. [1] Still, it was not before the introduction of the silicon stent in a double-J configuration by Finney that the use of ureteral stents was popularized. [2]

However, the widespread use of ureteral stenting has been proven to be far from uneventful. The presence of stents in the ureter has been associated with impeded flow of urine, stent encrustation, and infection as well as inability to successfully maintain patency of the upper urinary tract. Certain modifications in stent design and the use of biomaterials have been implemented in an effort to alleviate some of the above mentioned problems as well as the discomfort and reduced quality of life associated with the presence of indwelling plastic ureteral stents and the subsequent need for periodic stent changes.

In an effort to overcome these issues, indwelling metal ureteral stents were initially introducedfor the management of upper tract obstruction. The theoretical advantages of metal stents over silicon ones included reduced encrustation, improved tensile strength and stability, prolonged stent indwell time, and better flow.

Initial clinical experience with the metal stents was not encouraging. This was due to the high incidence of stent migration, especially with the covered metal stents, urothelial hyperplasia, and encrustation with subsequent stent occlusion necessitating the placement of additional stents. Moreover, most of those metal stents are short semi-permanent stents that are technically difficult to place and occasionally equally difficult to remove. [3],[4]

A possible explanation for the high incidence of adverse events and failure to adequately drain the upper urinary tract may be that in the majority of those studies, metal stents of various designs were exclusively used to treat cases of upper tract obstruction caused by extrinsic ureteral compression due to malignancy where traditional plastic stents had previously failed. [5]

The introduction of the Ni-Cr-Co alloy ureteral Resonance; stent aimed at eliminating the problems associated with the presence of short metal stents. Initial clinical experience with regard to technical success and patency rates were excellent for patients with malignant ureteral obstruction but not so for those with benign causes of upper tract obstruction. [6]

On the other hand, according to recent studies evaluating the role of indwelling metal stents for the management of benign upper tract obstruction, the Resonance; metal stents apart from maintaining upper tract patency are also more cost-effective than the traditional polymer stents mainly due to their longer exchange interval. [7]

A recent study with the use of electron microscopy and spectroscopy has confirmed the lack of epithelial tissue ingrowths and durability of the Resonance; metal stent. Moreover, clinical experience revealed limited pain and discomfort for patients with indwelling metal stents for time periods ranging from 6 months to 3 years. [8]

The paper published in the earlier issue of the Indian Journal of Urology poses the same question: are metal ureteral stents only effective for the management of cases of chronic upper tract obstruction due to malignancy? The data presented by the authors describing their vast clinical experience with the use of metal stents support the use of metal stents for both malignant and benign causes of upper tact obstruction and should be seriously taken into consideration. [9]

Therefore, there is ground to support that the long-term use of metal stents may be safe and effective in certain cases of chronic ureteral obstruction due to both malignant and benign causes, given the advantages of avoiding the frequent exchange of stents, decreasing hospital costs, and improving the quality of life of patients.

 
   References Top

1.Gibbons RP, Correa RJ Jr, Cummings KB, Mason JT. Experience with indwelling ureteral stent catheters. J Urol 1976;115:22-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Finney RP. Experience with a new double-J ureteral catheter stent. J Urol 1978;120:678-81.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Klarskov P, Nordling J, Nielsen JB. Experience with Memokath 051 ureteral stent. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2005;39:169-72.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Pauer W, Lugmayr H. Metallic Wallstents: A new therapy for extrinsic ureteral obstruction. J Urol 1992;148:281-4.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Sountoulides P, Kaplan A, Kaufmann OG, Sofikitis N. Current status of metal stents for managing malignant ureteric obstruction. BJU Int 2010 [In press].  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Liatsikos E, Kallidonis P, Kyriazis I, Constantinidis C, Hendlin K, Stolzenburg JU, et al. Ureteral obstruction: Is the full metallic double-pigtail stent the way to go? Eur Urol 2010;57:480-6.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.López-Huertas HL, Polcari AJ, Acosta-Miranda A, Turk TM. Metallic ureteral stents: A cost-effective method of managing benign upper tract obstruction. J Endourol 2010;24:483-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Cauda V, Fiori C, Cauda F. Ni-Cr-Co alloy ureteral stent: Scanning electron microscopy and elemental analysis characterization after long-term indwelling. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2010;94:501-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Abdulrahman AA, Iason K, Panagiotis K, Evangelos LN. Clinical experience with ureteral metal stents. Indian J Urol 2010;26:472-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

 
   Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (262 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1973    
    Printed92    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded113    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

HEALTHWARE INDIA