Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Size does matter: ureteral stents with a smaller diameter show advantages regarding urinary symptoms, pain levels and general health

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To compare the effect of different diameters of ureteral stents (F4.7, F6, and F7) on quality of life regarding the subdomains of the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire.

Materials and methods

All patients undergoing URS between April 2016 and July 2017 were prospectively randomised for ureteral stents F4.7, F6 and F7, respectively. All patients with other pathologies than a ureter stone, ureteral stents on both sides or other therapy than a secondary URS were excluded. Readmitted patients were interviewed using the USSQ. Furthermore, success rates of the second URS were also noted.

Results

Between April 2016 to July 2017, 181 patients were included, 48 with a ureteral stent F4.6, 66 with F6 and 67 with F7. No significant differences in age, gender or position of the stones before URS were found (all p > 0.5). Comparing scores of USSQ between F4.7 and F6 or F6 and F7, scores were in favour of the smaller stent, but significance was only reached in “Work performance score” (F6–F7, p = 0.04) and “Urinary index score” (F4.7–F6, p = 0.004). When comparing F4.7 with F7, significant differences in all subgroups in favour of F4.7 were documented (all p < 0.03). Surgical success of the second URS was comparable in all groups (all above 82%, p > 0.15).

Conclusion

Discomfort and pain increase with the diameter of the indwelling ureter stent, while the success of the following URS is not compromised by a ureter stent with a smaller diameter. Therefore, ureteral stents with a small diameter should be preferred.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T (2016) EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69:468–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y, Can CE, Unsal A (2011) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower pole renal stones with a diameter of 15–20 mm. J Endourol 25:1131–1135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Niţă G, Mirciulescu V, Cauni V (2006) Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedure: a single centre experience. J Endourol 20:179–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Grasso M, Conlin M, Bagley D (1998) Retrograde ureteropyeloscopic treatment of 2 cm or greater upper urinary tract and minor Staghorn calculi. J Urol 160(2):346–351

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tolley D (2000) Ureteric stents, far from ideal. Lancet 356:872–873

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG, Barry MJ (2003) Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 169:1065–1069

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bosio A, Alessandria E, Dalmasso E, Peretti D, Agosti S, Bisconti A, Destefanis P, Passera R, Gontero P (2019) How bothersome double-J ureteral stents are after semirigid and flexible ureteroscopy: a prospective single-institution observational study. World J Urol 37(1):201–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Joshi HB, Newns N, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney (2003) Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire: development and validation of a multidimensional quality of life measure. J Urol 169:1060–1064

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Abt D, Dötzer K, Honek P, Müller K, Engeler DS, Burger M, Schmid HP, Knoll T, Sanguedolce F, Joshi HB, Fritsche HM (2017) The german linguistic validation of the ureteral stent symptoms questionnaire (USSQ). World J Urol 35(3):443–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Damiano R, Autorino R, De Sio M, Cantiello F, Quarto G, Perdonà S, Sacco R, D’Armiento M (2005) Does the size of ureteral stent impact urinary symptoms and quality of life? A prospective randomized study. Eur Urol 48:673–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Joshi HB, Chitale SV, Nagarajan M, Irving SO, Browning AJ, Biyani CS, Burgess NA (2005) A prospective randomised single-blind comparison of ureteral stents composed of firm and soft polymer. J Urol 174:2303–2306

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hendlin K, Dockendorf K, Horn C, Pshon N, Lund B, Monga M (2006) Ureteral stents: coil strength and durometer. Urology 68:42–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Davenport K, Kumar V, Collins J, Melotti R, Timoney AG, Keeley FX Jr (2011) New ureteral stent design does not improve patient quality of Life: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol 185:175–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Park HK, Paick SH, Kim HG, Lho YS, Bae S (2015) The Impact of ureteral stent type on patient symptoms as determined by the ureteral stent symptom questionnaire: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Endourol 29:367–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Al-Kandari AM, Al-Shaiji TF, Shaaban H, Ibrahim HM, Elshebiny YH, Shokeir AA (2007) Effects of proximal and distal ends of double-J ureteral stent position on postprocedural symptoms and quality of life: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol 21:698–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Liatsikos EN, Gershbaum D, Kapoor R, Fogarty J, Dinlenc CZ, Bernardo NO, Smith AD (2001) Comparison of symptoms related to positioning of double-pigtail stent in upper pole versus renal pelvis. J Endourol 15:299–302

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ho CH, Chen SC, Chung SD, Lee YJ, Chen J, Yu HJ, Huang KH (2008) Determining the appropriate length of a double-pigtail ureteral stent by both stent configurations and related symptoms. J Endourol 22:1427–1431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cubuk A, Yanaral F, Ozgor F, Savun M, Ozdemir H, Erbin A, Yuksel B, Sarilar O (2018) Comparison of 4.8Fr and 6Fr ureteral stents on stent related symptoms following ureterorenoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 34(12):695–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Erturk E, Sessions A, Joseph JV (2003) Impact of ureteral stent diameter on symptoms and tolerability. J Endourol 17(2):59–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Candela JV, Bellman GC (1997) Ureteral stents: impact of diameter and composition on patient symptoms. J Endourol 11(1):45–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Vogt B, Desfemmes FN, Desgrippes A, Ponsot Y (2016) MiniJFil: a new safe and effective stent for well-tolerated repeated extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy for medium-to-large kidney stones. Nephrourol Mon 8(5):e40788

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Hochtaunusklinik Bad Homburg, Bad Homburg, Germany

    Sebastian Nestler, B. Witte, L. Schilchegger & J. Jones

Authors
  1. Sebastian Nestler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Witte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Schilchegger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SN: project development, data collection, data analysis and manuscript writing. BW: data collection and data analysis. LS: data analysis. JJ: manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Nestler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors were not compensated and retained the control over the content of the manuscript.

Research involving human participants

The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients at time of follow-up.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nestler, S., Witte, B., Schilchegger, L. et al. Size does matter: ureteral stents with a smaller diameter show advantages regarding urinary symptoms, pain levels and general health. World J Urol 38, 1059–1063 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02829-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02829-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation