Is Stent on a String the New Gold Standard for Postureteroscopy Ureteral Drainage? Evidence from a Systematic Review

Introduction: Ureteral stents are widely used throughout urologic surgery, most commonly following ureteroscope (URS) procedures. This systematic review aims to assess the current evidence concerning stent on string (SOS) placed after URS and compare it with stents without strings (SWOSs). Methods: A systematic review was conducted on several databases using the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) methodology for studies in English language, for patients of all age groups, who had an SOS after URS for stone disease. Results: Of 1210 records identified, a total of 22 studies (20 adult and 2 pediatric studies) were included, with a total of 8382 patients. Of these, 3427 (40.9%) had SOSs inserted and 434 (11%) were in the pediatric age group. Our results show that SOS provides several advantages, and compared with SWOS, they were in situ for less time, with no difference in complications such as urinary tract infection or urinary symptoms. Furthermore, significant cost savings, less pain on removal, and high rates of safe home removal were reported in SOS, with >90% patients reporting that they would be happy to remove their SOSs at home. However, a small risk of stent dislodgment must be considered when making decisions regarding SOS placement after URS. Conclusion: SOS provides an excellent option after URS, especially in those patients with no intraoperative complication, and their placement is done as a routine insertion based on surgeon preference. These stents reduce dwell time, pain, cost, risks, and suffering involved from prolonged stenting, and majority of patients are happy to remove it themselves at home. Although their use seems to be still restricted in the current endourology practices, they are likely to become the new gold standard for routine URS in future, with more shared decision making and patient-reported outcome measures coming into the mainstream.

The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better?

Objective

To evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ureteric stent removal using strings compared to conventional methods.

Materials and Methods

The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to March 2020. Two reviewers searched the literature, independently extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data analysis was performed with the software program Review Manager 5.3.

Results

Eleven studies with a total of 1809 patients were included in the analysis based on the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis showed that visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were significantly lower in the string group than in the conventional group (weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.68, -1.58; P < 0.00001). In terms of stent dwell time, the string group had an advantage (WMD -9.53; 95% CI -14.20, -4.86; P < 0.0001). In addition, no significant differences in the occurrence of urinary tract infection (UTI) (odds ratio (OR) 1.03; 95% CI 0.62, 1.72; P = 0.92), emergency room visits (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.59, 1.67; P = 0.97), or other complications (P > 0.05) were observed between the two groups.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that an extraction string is an effective and safe method for the removal of ureteric stents. This method gives patients the benefits of reduced pain and shortened stent dwell time without increasing the risk of UTI. Nevertheless, these findings should be further confirmed through large-volume, well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs).