Pigtail Suture Stents Significantly Reduce Stent-related Symptoms Compared to Conventional Double J Stents: A Prospective Randomized Trial.
Double J stent
Lower urinary tract symptoms
Nephrolithiasis
Pain
Pigtail suture stents
RIRS
Stent-related symptoms
Stents
URS
Ureteroscopy
Urinary calculi
Journal
European urology open science
ISSN: 2666-1683
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Open Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101771568
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
accepted:
29
03
2021
entrez:
2
8
2021
pubmed:
3
8
2021
medline:
3
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Double J (DJ) ureteral stents are commonly inserted after ureteroscopy (URS) procedures for stone treatment. However, stent-related symptoms are still a major issue. To determine whether a commercially available pigtail suture stent (PSS) can reduce stent-related symptoms compared to a conventional DJ stent after uncomplicated URS. We designed a randomized, single-blind, parallel-group trial from January to November 2020. The inclusion criteria were stone-free URS without intraprocedural complications. Patients with distal ureteral stones were excluded. Insertion of a PSS or DJ stent after URS. The primary endpoint was the Urinary Symptom Index score on the Ureteral Stent Symptoms Questionnaire (USSQ) 2 wk after URS. Secondary endpoints were USSQ domain scores and responses to individual USSQ questions at 2 d and 2 wk after surgery. A total of 78 patients were randomized and treated according to protocol. The Urinary Symptom Index score ( PSS significantly reduced stent-related symptoms after URS, in particular urinary symptoms and pain, compared to conventional DJ stents, and showed a good safety profile. Stents are hollow tubes placed in the passage between the kidney and the bladder (ureter). The standard stent has two coiled ends (double J stent) to keep it in place in both the kidney and the bladder. We tested a commercial stent with two strings at the bladder end (pigtail suture stent) after procedures to remove stones from the upper urinary tract and found that it caused less stent-related symptoms compared to a double J stent.
This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03344120.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Double J (DJ) ureteral stents are commonly inserted after ureteroscopy (URS) procedures for stone treatment. However, stent-related symptoms are still a major issue.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether a commercially available pigtail suture stent (PSS) can reduce stent-related symptoms compared to a conventional DJ stent after uncomplicated URS.
DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
METHODS
We designed a randomized, single-blind, parallel-group trial from January to November 2020. The inclusion criteria were stone-free URS without intraprocedural complications. Patients with distal ureteral stones were excluded.
INTERVENTION
METHODS
Insertion of a PSS or DJ stent after URS.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
METHODS
The primary endpoint was the Urinary Symptom Index score on the Ureteral Stent Symptoms Questionnaire (USSQ) 2 wk after URS. Secondary endpoints were USSQ domain scores and responses to individual USSQ questions at 2 d and 2 wk after surgery.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A total of 78 patients were randomized and treated according to protocol. The Urinary Symptom Index score (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
PSS significantly reduced stent-related symptoms after URS, in particular urinary symptoms and pain, compared to conventional DJ stents, and showed a good safety profile.
PATIENT SUMMARY
RESULTS
Stents are hollow tubes placed in the passage between the kidney and the bladder (ureter). The standard stent has two coiled ends (double J stent) to keep it in place in both the kidney and the bladder. We tested a commercial stent with two strings at the bladder end (pigtail suture stent) after procedures to remove stones from the upper urinary tract and found that it caused less stent-related symptoms compared to a double J stent.
This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03344120.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34337527
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.03.011
pii: S2666-1683(21)00078-1
pmc: PMC8317849
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03344120']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1-9Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors.
Références
J Urol. 2003 Mar;169(3):1060-4
pubmed: 12576846
J Urol. 2009 Jun;181(6):2581-7
pubmed: 19375088
World J Urol. 2015 Aug;33(8):1061-8
pubmed: 25213219
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Feb 06;2:CD012703
pubmed: 30726554
J Urol. 1991 Oct;146(4):966-9
pubmed: 1895452
Int J Urol. 2020 Jan;27(1):7-15
pubmed: 31549458
J Endourol. 2007 Nov;21(11):1287-91
pubmed: 18042016
Urology. 2021 Feb;148:83-87
pubmed: 33253740
BJU Int. 2021 May;127(5):596-605
pubmed: 33152169
World J Urol. 2019 Nov;37(11):2501-2508
pubmed: 30747279
BJU Int. 2011 Dec;108(11):1894-902
pubmed: 21453351
J Urol. 2020 Oct;204(4):769-777
pubmed: 32364838
Eur Urol. 2020 Sep;78(3):310-313
pubmed: 32660749
Urol Res. 2012 Dec;40(6):763-7
pubmed: 22899382
J Urol. 2019 Jul;202(1):164-170
pubmed: 30829132
J Urol. 2008 Aug;180(2):624-8
pubmed: 18554654
J Endourol. 2016 Apr;30(4):417-21
pubmed: 26650710
BJU Int. 2014 Feb;113(2):184-5
pubmed: 24119102
World J Urol. 2019 Jan;37(1):201-207
pubmed: 29923014
BJU Int. 2021 Mar 16;:
pubmed: 33724668
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2020 Nov;30(11):1183-1188
pubmed: 32293992