Advertisement

In Vivo Evaluation of a Novel Pigtail Suture Stent

Published:November 27, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.11.031

      OBJECTIVE

      To compare pressure, dilation, and histology in a porcine model after stenting with a pigtail suture stent (PSS)–where the ureteral and bladder component consists of a suture and a double J (DJ) stent.

      METHODS

      Twelve pigs were studied with a PSS (4.8F/MiniJFil®) and DJ stent (4.8F/RocaJJ Soft) inserted in both sides, except in one where the DJ was not placed to serve as control. Intrapelvic pressure (IPP) and ureteral pressures were recorded. Five pigs were stented for 7 days, and the next 7 for 13-15 days, where a retrograde study was performed after stent removal. Ureteral histology in 4 and 3 pigs stented for 7- and 13-15 days, respectively, were assessed in a blinded manner.

      RESULTS

      In total, 11 renal units were stented with PSS and DJ, respectively. There was a rise in IPP and ureteral pressure after stenting. There were no significant differences in post-stenting pressures between DJ and PSS systems. Ureteral dilation occurred in 100% of DJ and 83% of PSS units. PSS suture migration occurred in 3 of 11. Gross edema at the ureteral orifice was greater with the DJ compared to the PSS (82% vs 18%; p = .003). Histology demonstrated greater inflammation at the ureteral orifice in the DJ group (2.3 vs 1; p = .016) when stented for 13-15 days.

      CONCLUSION

      There was no difference in IPP after stenting with a PSS compared to a DJ stent. When stented for 13-15 days, the PSS resulted in ureteral dilation, but with less edema and inflammation at the ureteral orifice.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Finney RP
        Experience with new double J ureteral catheter stent.
        J Urol. 1978; 120: 678-681
        • Joshi HB
        • Stainthorpe A
        • MacDonagh RP
        • Keeley Jr, FX
        • Timoney AG
        • Barry MJ
        Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility.
        J Urol. 2003; 169: 1065-1069
        • Pryor JL
        • Langley MJ
        • Jenkins AD
        Comparison of symptom characteristics of indwelling ureteral catheters.
        J. Urol. 1991; 145: 719-722
        • Joshi HB
        • Chitale SV
        • Nagarajan M
        • et al.
        A prospective randomized single-blind comparison of ureteral stents composed of firm and soft polymer.
        J Urol. 2005; 174: 2303-2306
        • Davenport K
        • Kumar V
        • Collins J
        • Melotti R
        • Timoney AG
        • Keeley Jr, FX
        New ureteral stent design does not improve patient quality of life: a randomized, controlled trial.
        J Urol. 2011; 185: 175-178
        • Dunn MD
        • Portis AJ
        • Kahn SA
        • et al.
        Clinical effectiveness of new stent design: randomized single-blind comparison of tail and double-pigtail stents.
        J Endourol. 2000; 14: 195-202
        • Lingeman JE
        • Preminger GM
        • Goldfischer ER
        • Krambeck AE
        • Comfort Study Team
        Assessing the impact of ureteral stent design on patient comfort.
        J Urol. 2009; 181: 2581-2587
        • Betschart P
        • Zumstein V
        • Piller A
        • Schmid HP
        • Abt D
        Prevention and treatment of symptoms associated with indwelling ureteral stents: a systematic review.
        Int J Urol. 2017; 24: 250-259
        • Vogt B
        • Desfemmes FN
        • Desgrippes A
        • Ponsot Y
        MiniJFil®: a new safe and effective stent for well-tolerated repeated extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy for medium-to-large kidney stones?.
        Nephrourol Mon. 2016; 8: e40788
        • Vogt B
        • Desgrippes A
        • Desfemmes FN
        Sondes JFil et MiniJFil: progrès décisifs dans la tolérance des sondes urétérales et propriétés inattendues du fil urétéral [Pigtail suture stent: decisive progress towards double-pigtail stent tolerance and unexpected properties of the suture in the ureter].
        Prog Urol. 2014; 24: 441-450
        • Johnson LJ
        • Davenport D
        • Venkatesh R
        Effects of alpha-blockade on ureteral peristalsis and intrapelvic pressure in an in vivo stented porcine model.
        J Endourol. 2016; 30: 417-421
        • Ryan PC
        • Lennon GM
        • McLean PA
        • Fitzpatrick JM
        The effects of acute and chronic JJ stent placement on upper urinary tract motility and calculus transit.
        Br J Urol. 1994; 74: 434-439
        • Cormio L
        • Koivusalo A
        • Mäkisalo H
        • Wolff H
        • Ruutu M
        The effects of various indwelling JJ stents on renal pelvic pressure and renal parenchymal thickness in the pig.
        Br J Urol. 1994; 74: 440-443
        • Payne SR
        • Ramsay JW
        The effects of double J stents on renal pelvic dynamics in the pig.
        J Urol. 1988; 140: 637-641
        • Lim KS
        • Lim YW
        • Yong DZP
        • et al.
        Two weeks too long: optimal duration for ureteral prestenting and its physiologic effects on the ureter in a yorkshire-landrace pig model.
        J Endourol. 2019; 33: 325-330