Long-term stone-free rates after flexible URS: Does the size of DJ stent affect the outcomes

Year 2023, Volume: 18 Issue: 1, 48 - 54, 27.02.2023

Ümit Yıldırım , Mehmet Uslu , Mehmet Ezer , Rasim Güzel , Kemal Sarıca

https://doi.org/10.33719/yud.2023;18-1-1188129

Abstract

Objective: This study’s main goal was to evaluate the possible impact of different-sized double-J (DJ) stents on the pain and stone-free status following flexible ureteroscopic laser disintegration (fURS) of renal stones.
Material and Methods: A total of 104 patients who underwent fURS for kidney stones were included in our study. In 51 patients, a 4.7 Fr DJ stent was used after stone fragmentation, while in the remaining 53 cases, a 6 Fr stent was chosen. Between the two groups, general pain symptoms were evaluated using a visual pain scale at the end of the first postoperative week. The stone-free status was evaluated using non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) after three months following surgery. Success was determined by either the complete clearance of the stones or the presence of small stone fragments (<3 mm).
Results: Using a visual pain scale, we compared the two groups’ overall reports of pain (4.02±1.10 vs 4.81±1.53, p=0.006).  When we looked at the stone-free rates, the two groups were not significantly different in this regard (84.3% vs 74.5%, p=0.264). We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative fever, stent migration, or visits to the emergency room.
Conclusion: In spite of the fact that larger diameter stents resulted in more pain complaints for patients, they did not alter the long-term stone-free rates appreciably, as evidenced by our findings. In order to reduce the occurrence of unpleasant symptoms, a 4.7 Fr double-j stent may be preferable over a 6 Fr stent following flexible ureteroscopic surgery.

Keywords

Double-j stent diameter , renal stones , flexible ureterorenoscopy , stone free

Flexible URS sonrası uzun dönem taşsızlık oranları: DJ-stentin boyutu sonuçları etkiliyor mu?

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, kullanılan double- J (DJ) stent çapının, flexible üreteroskopik (fURS) böbrek taşı tedavisinin taşsızlık oranları ve postoperatif ağrı durumuna olası etkisini araştırdık.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Böbrek taşı nedeniyle fURS uygulanan toplam 104 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Taş tedavisi sonrası 51 hastaya 4.7 Fr DJ stent takılırken, 53 hastaya 6 Fr stent takıldı. Postoperatif 3. ayda kontrastsız bilgisayarlı tomografi ile incelenen taşsızlık durumuna ek olarak, iki grubun genel ağrı semptomları, postoperatif ilk haftayı takiben uygulanan görsel ağrı skalası ile değerlendirildi. Başarı, taşların tamamen temizlenmesi veya küçük taş parçalarının (<3 mm) varlığı olarak belirlendi.
Bulgular: İki grubun genel ağrı semptomları, görsel ağrı skalası kullanılarak ölçüldüğünde 6 Fr grubu daha öndeydi (4.02±1.10 vs 4.81±1.53, p=0.006). İki grup taşsızlık oranları açısından anlamlı fark göstermedi (%84.3 vs %74.5, p=0.264). İki grup arasında postoperatif ateş, stent migrasyonu veya acil servis ziyaretleri açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunamadı.
Sonuç: Bu çalışma, daha büyük çaplı stentlerin hastalarda daha yüksek ağrı şikayetlerine neden olmasına rağmen, uzun süreli taşsızlık oranlarını önemli ölçüde etkilemediğini belirledi. Flexible üreteroskopik cerrahi sonrası stent seçimi söz konusu olduğunda 6 Fr yerine 4.7 Fr DJ tercih edilmelidir.

Keywords

Dj stent çapı , böbrek taşları , flexible üreterorenoskopi , taşsızlık

References

• 1. Doizi S, Traxer O. Flexible ureteroscopy: technique, tips and tricks. Urolithiasis 2018;46(1):47–58; doi: 10.1007/S00240-017-1030-X.
• 2. Singal RK, Denstedt JD. Contemporary management of ureteral stones. Urol Clin North Am 1997;24(1):59–70; doi: 10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70354-2.
• 3. Quhal F, Seitz C. Guideline of the guidelines: urolithiasis. Curr Opin Urol 2021;31(2):125–129; doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000855.
• 4. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, et al. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016;69(3):475–482; doi: 10.1016/J.EURURO.2015.07.041.
• 5. Chung DY, Kang DH, Cho KS, et al. Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS One 2019;14(2); doi: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0211316.
• 6. Dellis A, Joshi HB, Timoney AG, et al. Relief of Stent Related Symptoms: Review of Engineering and Pharmacological Solutions. J Urol 2010;184(4):1267–1272; doi: 10.1016/J.JURO.2010.06.043.
• 7. Liu Q, Liao B, Zhang R, et al. Combination therapy only shows short-term superiority over monotherapy on ureteral stent-related symptoms - outcome from a randomized controlled trial. BMC Urol 2016;16(1):1–8; doi: 10.1186/S12894-016-0186-Y.
• 8. Giannarini G, Keeley FX, Valent F, et al. Predictors of morbidity in patients with indwelling ureteric stents: results of a prospective study using the validated Ureteric Stent Symptoms Questionnaire. BJU Int 2011;107(4):648–654; doi: 10.1111/J.1464-410X.2010.09482.X.
• 9. Wu G, Sun F, Sun K, et al. Impact of differential ureteral stent diameters on clinical outcomes after ureteroscopy intracorporeal lithotripsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Urology 2021;28(10):992–999; doi: 10.1111/IJU.14631.
• 10. Song T, Liao B, Zheng S, et al. Meta-analysis of postoperatively stenting or not in patients underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Urol Res 2012;40(1):67–77; doi: 10.1007/S00240-011-0385-7/FIGURES/8.
• 11. Muslumanoglu AY, Fuglsig S, Frattini A, et al. Risks and Benefits of Postoperative Double-J Stent Placement after Ureteroscopy: Results from the Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study. J Endourol 2017;31(5):446–451; doi: 10.1089/END.2016.0827.
• 12. Wu G, Sun F, Sun K, et al. Impact of differential ureteral stent diameters on clinical outcomes after ureteroscopy intracorporeal lithotripsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Urology 2021;28(10):992–999; doi: 10.1111/IJU.14631.
• 13. Kim BS, Choi JY, Jung W. Does a Ureteral Stent with a Smaller Diameter Reduce Stent-Related Bladder Irritation? A Single-Blind, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Study. J Endourol 2020;34(3):368–372; doi: 10.1089/END.2019.0482.
• 14. Damiano R, Autorino R, de Sio M, et al. Does the Size of Ureteral Stent Impact Urinary Symptoms and Quality of Life? A Prospective Randomized Study. Eur Urol 2005;48(4):673–678; doi: 10.1016/J.EURURO.2005.06.006.
• 15. 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 2020;38(4):1059–1063; doi: 10.1007/S00345-019-02829-0.