Simplified method using kidney / ureter / bladder x-ray to determine the appropriate length of ureteral stents

Urinary Stent Development and Evaluation Models: In Vitro, Ex Vivo and In Vivo-A European Network of Multidisciplinary Research to Improve Urinary Stents (ENIUS) Initiative

Background: When trying to modify urinary stents, certain pre-clinical steps have to be followed before clinical evaluation in humans. Usually, the process starts as an in silico assessment. The urinary tract is a highly complex, dynamic and variable environment, which makes a computer simulation closely reflecting physiological conditions extremely challenging. Therefore, the pre-clinical evaluation needs to go through further steps of in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo assessments. Methods and materials: Within the European Network of Multidisciplinary Research to Improve Urinary Stents (ENIUS), the authors summarized and evaluated stent assessment models in silico, in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo. The topic and relevant sub-topics were researched in a systematic literature search in Embase, Scope, Web of Science and PubMed. Clinicaltrials.gov was consulted for ongoing trials. Articles were selected systematically according to guidelines with non-relevant, non-complete, and non-English or Spanish language articles excluded. Results: In the first part of this paper, we critically evaluate in vitro stent assessment models used over the last five decades, outlining briefly their strengths and weaknesses. In the second part, we provide a step-by-step guide on what to consider when setting up an ex vivo model for stent evaluation on the example of a biodegradable stent. Lastly, the third part lists and discusses the pros and cons of available animal models for urinary stent evaluation, this being the final step before human trials. Conclusions: We hope that this overview can provide a practical guide and a critical discussion of the experimental pre-clinical evaluation steps needed, which will help interested readers in choosing the right methodology from the start of a stent evaluation process once an in silico assessment has been completed. Only a transparent multidisciplinary approach using the correct methodology will lead to a successful clinical implementation of any new or modified stent.

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.