Effect of ureteral stent diameter on ureteral stent‐related symptoms

The Effect of High- and Low-power Holmium Laser Settings for Transurethral Lithotripsy in the Management of Adults with Ureteral Stone

Since there is insufficient evidence to determine the best treatment of transurethral laser lithotripsy (TLL) in ureteral stones, this study compared the effectiveness and safety of TLL using high-power (HP) (100 W) and low-power (LP) (20 W) laser settings. All patients with maximally sized ureteral stones who were planned for transurethral holmium laser lithotripsy were enrolled in this open study. One of the two laser setting groups-LP or HP-was allocated to each alternate patient. Using IBM SPSS Statistics 24, the treatment groups were compared for operating time, intraoperative and postoperative problems (up to 1 year), and rates of stone-free recovery. Welch tests were employed to compare continuous data, whereas Fisher's exact or Chi-square tests were used to assess categorical variables. At P < 0.05, statistical significance was established. A total of 207 individuals were included and preoperative data were comparable between the two groups. The HP group had a considerably greater ablation rate and a significantly shorter procedure duration (42.61 ± 11.74 min) than the LP group (78.56 ± 25.91 min) ( P = 0.025). The Overactive Bladder Symptom Score and International Prostate Symptom Score were considerably higher in the HP group than in the LP group. Treatment effectiveness was considerably impacted by the location of the ureteral stone, according to univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. A HP laser setting of up to 100 W greatly shortens the duration of the process for treating ureteral stones without raising the risk of problems.

Comparation of intraureteral stent and conventional stent at different stages: a systematic review with meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Stent related symptom (SRS) is the most common adverse effect of ureteral stenting. In recent years, many efforts have been made to develope modified ureteral stents to ameliorate SRS. It has been reported that intraureteral stents have the potential to improve the tail end adverse effect of the bladder and alleviate SRS. However, there still lack of evidence for the efficacy and the safety of clinically applying intraureteral stents. The aim of this work is to investigate the efficacy and safety of intraureteral stents.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was performed by using the PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library. The studies published before February 2023 were included. The study selection was following the guideline from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). The searching strategy was: "Pigtail suture stent" OR "Intra-ureteric stent" OR "Suture Stent" OR "Intraureteral stent" AND "Ureteroscopy" OR "Urinary calculi" OR "Stent-related symptoms" OR "Lower urinary tract symptoms". The data from randomized clinical trials which meet the selection criteria were extracted. Revman 5.4 was employed to proceed the meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of six randomized clinical trials of intraureteral stents were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. According to the different investigation time, the results could be divided into four stages: early-stage, middle-stage, late-stage, and long-term evaluation. Urinary symptoms, pain score, and general health were significantly improved in intraureteral stents group at middle stage. For late-stage, intraureteral stent achieved better outcomes in urinary symptoms index, VAS score, quality of life, general health, and pain score. However, for early-stage and long-term evaluation, there was no significant difference between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that regardless of the stage of treatment, the efficacy and safety of intraureteral stent are no worse than that of conventional stent. During 7-14 days postoperation, which is the most commonly time for clinically using ureteral stent, most of the outcomes of intraureteral stent are better than those of conventional stent. Hence, it is confirmed that intraureteral stent is worth for more clinical study and application.

Evaluation of ureteral injuries caused by ureteral access sheath insertion during ureteroscopic lithotripsy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate ureteral injuries caused by insertion of a 13-Fr ureteral access sheath and identify factors (other than pre-stenting) that are predictive of ureteral injury.

METHODS

We enrolled 201 patients who underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL). We excluded 80 patients who underwent ureteral stent insertion before URSL, 10 patients who did not use a ureteral access sheath, and 2 patients in whom a ureteral access sheath could not be inserted. In total, 109 patients were analyzed; all underwent insertion of a 13-Fr ureteral access sheath. We investigated ureteral injuries using the Traxer ureteral injury scale.

RESULTS

There were 21 (19.3%) cases of ureteral access sheath-related ureteral injury, including 11 (10.1%) grade 2 cases and 10 (9.2%) grade 3 cases. The ureteral injury location was the proximal ureter in 20 cases (18.3%), middle ureter in one case (0.9%), and distal ureter in zero cases. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that male sex and smaller stone diameter were significant predictive factors for ureteral injury (p = 0.037, odds ratio [OR]: 5.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-24.3 and p = 0.02, OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.71-0.97, respectively). Postoperative ureteral stricture did not occur in any cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of ureteral injury caused by a 13-Fr ureteral access sheath was considerable, and most ureteral injuries occurred in the proximal ureter. Male sex and smaller stone diameter were significant predictive factors for ureteral injury. The proximal ureter should be confirmed when using a 13-Fr ureteral access sheath, particularly in male patients and patients with small stones.

Distal end of Double-J ureteral stent position on ureteral stent-related symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Most patients suffer from ureteral stent-related symptoms (USRS) caused by indwelling ureteral stents. Nevertheless, various medications to alleviate discomfort as well as novel stents are continually being developed, and in recent years, some researchers have believed that proper intravesical stent placement can relieve USRS.

Objective

To determine appropriate intravesical ureteral stent position may alleviate USRS.

Methods

Up to May 1, 2022, the PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science databases were thoroughly searched, and two independent reviewers included relevant studies that met the PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) criteria. Studies methodological quality were assessed by ROB2 and ROBINS-I. Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ), international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) was used to quantify the USRS. According to intravesical ureteral stent position, Group A was defined as the contralateral group, that is distal end of ureteral stent crossed the bladder midline, whereas Group B was classified as ipsilateral group, meaning stent end did not cross the midline.

Results

Six studies incorporating a total of 590 patients were eligible. In terms of USSQ score, the meta-analysis showed that contralateral group was associated with a significant increase in USSQ total (MD, 17.55; 95% CI, 12.04 to 23.07; P < 0.001), urinary symptoms (MD, 2.74; 95% CI, 0.48 to 5.01; P = 0.02), general health (MD, 4.04; 95% CI, 2.66 to 5.42; P < 0.001), work performance (MD, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.98; P < 0.001) and additional problems (MD, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.32; P < 0.001) scores while not associated with a significant increase in body pain (MD, 3.13; 95% CI, −0.19 to 6.44; P = 0.06) and sexual matters (MD, 1.01; 95% CI, −0.03 to 2.06; P = 0.06). As for IPSS, although no significant differences in IPSS total (MD, 2.65; 95% CI, −0.24 to 5.54; P = 0.07) or voiding symptoms (MD, −0.84; 95% CI, −3.16 to 1.48; P = 0.48) scores were found, ipsilateral group was associated with a significant decrease in storage symptoms (MD, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.91 to 2.93; P = 0.0002). Furthermore, ipsilateral group was linked to a significant decrease in QoL score (MD, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.18 to 1.82; P = 0.02).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis proven that correct intravesical stent position was critical, and patients with stents crossing the midline experienced more severe USRS than those who did not. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to corroborate our findings.

Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing a ureteral stent crossing versus not crossing the bladder midline

PURPOSE

To evaluate the correlation between the position of a ureteral stent and stent-related symptoms in a single-center randomized study.

METHODS

A total of 113 patients who required ureteral stent placement after lithotripsy were randomized at a 1:1 ratio into groups with stents crossing and not crossing the bladder midline. The ureteral stent remained in place until postoperative day 14, when we obtained each patient's International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), overactive bladder symptom score (OABSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) pain score.

RESULTS

Comparing changes from baseline IPSS and OABSS scores between the two groups, the midline crossing group had a worse OABSS total score than the not crossing group (3.0 ± 2.8 vs. 2.0 ± 3.3; p = 0.032). There was no significant difference between the crossing and not crossing groups in IPSS total score (6.8 ± 7.6 vs. 5.1 ± 8.5; p = 0.14). The OABSS urgency mean score was significantly lower in the not crossing than in the crossing group (1.1 ± 1.8 vs. 1.6 ± 1.8; p = 0.042). However, there was no significant difference between groups for remaining items of the IPSS and OABSS and the mean VAS total pain score (1.9 ± 2.7 vs. 1.2 ± 1.9; p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

A ureteral stent that crossed the bladder midline led to worse urinary symptoms. Choosing the appropriate stent length for each patient is important to minimize stent-related symptoms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

1 October 2018; number: UMIN000034067.

Comparison of the effects of general, spinal and epidural anesthesia on ureter access and surgical outcomes during flexible ureterorenoscopy for transurethral single stone removal surgeries: a monocentric retrospective study

BACKGROUND

In ureterorenoscopy, anaesthesiologists are preferring regional anaesthesia to avoid postoperative complications, while surgeons are preferring general anaesthesia to avoid ureteral trauma. China has not published its guidelines and not referring to the European Association of Urology guidelines. The objectives of study were to evaluate the effects of general, spinal, and epidural anaesthesia on ureter access and surgical outcomes of ureterorenoscopy.

METHODS

Charts of a total of 392 patients with the American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade I or II, and underwent flexible ureterorenoscopy for removal of the proximal, middle, or distal ureteral single stone under general anaesthesia (GA group; n = 145) or spinal anaesthesia (SA group; n = 131) or epidural anaesthesia (EA group; n = 116) were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The dilatation time for patients of GA group was fewer than those of SA (104.01 ± 12.77 sec/patient vs. 130.55 ± 22.53 sec/patient, p < .0001, q = 17.0350) and EA (104.01 ± 12.77 sec/patient vs. 147.03 ± 18.76 sec/patient, p < .0001, q = 26.7240) groups. The time to reach to stone for patients of GA group was fewer than those of SA (126.68 ± 12.59 sec/patient vs. 137.60 ± 17.84 sec/patient, p < .0001, q = 8.4510) and EA (126.68 ± 12.59 sec/patient vs. 149.44 ± 14.85 sec/patient, p < .0001, q = 17.0350) groups. The lithotripsy time (p = .359), operation time (p = .449), intraoperative complications (p = .058), and length of hospital stays (p = .057) of patients were same among groups. Visual analog scale pain scores of patients of the GA group found higher among groups. General anaesthesia caused nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests general anaesthesia for flexible ureterorenoscopy if there is no contraindication.KEY MESSAGEGeneral anaesthesia facilitates early dilatation of ureters and access to the stone.No strong correlation of the anaesthesia method of choice with lithotripsy time, operation time, intraoperative complications, stone-free conditions, and length of hospital stays.Epidural and spinal anaesthesia have advantages of fewer postoperative pain and better postoperative outcomes for flexible ureterorenoscopy.

New Stent Technologies

Ureteral stents are an indispensable part of any (endo-) urologic practice. Despite the widely demonstrated advantages of stents, they also carry a considerable risk of side effects and complications, such as urinary symptoms, pain, hematuria, decreased quality of life, stent-related infection, and encrustation. Multiple pathways in preventing or mitigating these side effects and complications and improving stent efficacy have been and are being investigated, including stent architecture and design, biomaterials, and coatings. This article provides an update on currently researched and available stents as well as future perspectives.

Impact of differential ureteral stent diameters on clinical outcomes after ureteroscopy intracorporeal lithotripsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

In this meta-analysis we assessed whether the diameter of ureteral stents (4.7-5-Fr, 6-Fr) has an impact on the rate of occurrence of urinary tract symptoms and complications after successful URS and intracorporeal lithotripsy. A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. A rigorous search for relevant studies published in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was conducted to find informative randomized controlled trials. The reference lists of relevant articles were also manually searched and reviewed. The protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020202164). All statistical evaluations were performed using RevMan software version 5.3.0. Seven articles comprising 547 patients were included in the meta-analysis. After placement of ureteral stents with different diameters for approximately 1 week, we found that ureteral stents with smaller diameters (4.7-5-Fr) were associated with significant improvements in the main domain scores on the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire, such as urinary symptoms (mean difference -4.47, 95% confidence interval -5.87 to -3.08; P < 0.00001) and body pain (mean difference -2.48, 95% confidence interval -4.37 to -0.59; P = 0.01), but poor outcomes in stent migration compared to ureteral stents with a 6-Fr diameter (odds ratio 3.00, 95% confidence interval 1.06-8.51; P = 0.04). However, there were no significant differences in Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire scores with regard to work performance (mean difference -0.56, 95% confidence interval -2.52 to 1.40; P = 0.58), general health (mean difference -2.29, 95% confidence interval -4.95 to 0.37; P = 0.09), additional problems (mean difference -0.43, 95% confidence interval -1.02 to 0.15; P = 0.15), and complications such as fever (odds ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.24-2.39; P = 0.63). Ureteral stents with a diameter of 4.7-5-Fr have better outcomes than those with a diameter of 6-Fr, based on the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire pain and urinary tract symptoms scores. However, they are more prone to migration compared to those with a larger diameter.