Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 745   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size


 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 362-366  

Use of conventional DJ stent and single loop stent with string after ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy: Can we use? Can it be effective?


Department of Urology, Renal Transplant and Robotics, Dr D Y Patil Medical College, Pune, Maharastra, India

Date of Submission17-Aug-2020
Date of Acceptance11-Feb-2021
Date of Web Publication02-Sep-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sonu Sharma
Department of Urology, Renal Transplant and Robotics, Dr D Y Patil Medical College, Pimpri, Pune - 411 018, Maharastra
India
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_113_20

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Context: Use of conventional double j stent with string and single loop stent with string after ureterorenoscopy.
Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the use of both types of stents using the Ureteral Symptom Score Questionnaire (USSQ) and assess proximal migration.
Settings and Design: This was a single institute study.
Subjects and Methods: A total of 96 female patients with unilateral ureteric stones were enrolled. Patients underwent ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy, conventional double J (DJ) stent with string and single loop stent with string was placed. Before stent removal at 7–10 days, they were evaluated with X-ray kidney ureter bladder for proximal migration and USSQ for stent-related complaints.
Statistical Analysis Used: Data were analyzed using Chi-square and Student's t-test.
Results: In our study, Group A (DJ loop with string) had 51 patients and Group B (single J loop with string) had 47 patients. The mean stone size in group A was 10.06 mm and Group B was 9.7 mm. Both groups had one case each of early stent expulsion and none had proximal migration of the stent. Group A had two cases of urinary tract infection and Group B had one case which resolved on antibiotics. Evaluating the USSQ questionnaire in both groups, urinary symptoms such as urgency (P = 0.03), dysuria (P = 0.02), interference with life (P = 0.01), and quality impact overall (P = 0.016) were statistically significant. Evaluating pain, sleep disturbance (P = 0.04), pain at voiding (P = 0.03), and flank pain during voiding (P = 0.018) was statistically significant. In general health, difficulty with heavyweight physical activity (P = 0.02), feeling calm (P = 0.16), social life enjoyment (P = 0.26), and need for extra help (P = 0.008) was significant. In sexual matters, 13 (28%) patients in Group B had no active sex (conscious) and 6 (12%) patients had stopped intercourse due to stent-related symptoms, whereas in Group A, it was 10 (20%) and 2 (4%) patients, respectively.
Conclusions: The use of a single J stent with string is an effective method, has lesser complication, and is easier to remove.

Keywords: Double J stent, single loop, string, ureterorenoscopy


How to cite this article:
Sharma S, Sabale V, Mulay A, Mhaske S, Satav V, Nihar S. Use of conventional DJ stent and single loop stent with string after ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy: Can we use? Can it be effective?. Urol Ann 2021;13:362-6

How to cite this URL:
Sharma S, Sabale V, Mulay A, Mhaske S, Satav V, Nihar S. Use of conventional DJ stent and single loop stent with string after ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy: Can we use? Can it be effective?. Urol Ann [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Dec 7];13:362-6. Available from: https://www.urologyannals.com/text.asp?2021/13/4/362/325509




   Introduction Top


Ureteroscopy (URS) is one the most common intervention done for removing urinary tract stones, evaluating pelvicalyceal anatomy, and upper urinary tract malignancy. Stents are commonly placed in the ureter after the intervention. The sole work of stent is to maintain patency if there is a development of ureteric edema in response to instrumentation, to help in the passage of small stones remaining after a procedure, and to prevent stricture formation in case of ureteric injury.[1] Removing a ureteral stent using an extraction string was first described by Siegel et al. in 1986 as a simple method to avoid general anesthesia and unnecessary urethral instrumentation for pediatric patients.[2]

The American Urological Association Guidelines lists double J (DJ) stenting after URS as optional except in cases of specific complications. Hence, placement of DJ remains a common practice after a URS procedure.[3],[4] For removal of the stent, patients need to visit the hospital and undergo removal by use of cystoscope, which can be adverted by using stents with strings attached to them. The patient can be counseled about self-removal of the stent with the help of string and those who are unable to remove can visit the hospital. This could decrease a procedure as well as decrease hospital costs.[5]

Most of the studies show the use of conventional DJ stent with string and none with the use of a single loop with string.

This study is undertaken to compare stent-related complication using a single loop stent with string and DJ stent with string In female patients after retrograde technique for ureteric stones using Ureteral Symptom Score Questionnaire (USSQ).


   Subjects and Methods Top


This comparative study was performed in the Department of Urology in Dr. D Y Patil Medical College, Pune in the year 2018. Institutional Ethical Committee approval was obtained before the commencement of the study. A total of 96 female patients were enrolled in two groups.

Group A conventional DJ stent with string. Group B with Single J with string [Figure 1]. Patients with unilateral ureteric stones were included into the study. Patients with bilateral ureteric stones and patients unfit for surgery, mentally or physically challenged, trauma to the ureter, and males were excluded. A written and informed consent was obtained from the patient after explaining the merits and demerits of all the techniques. All the patients to be operated were given appropriate anesthesia before the procedure.
Figure 1: Cut end of the stent with string

Click here to view


All stents were inserted through a retrograde approach under cystoscopic guidance after ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy [Figure 2]. Stent lengths were determined based on patient height. The lower coil of the loop was cut (3 cm) and the string was tied to the cut end for the single loop group. The stent string was prolene 7-0 which was manipulated to leave a new air knot 1 cm from the stent end, the distal end of the string (15 cm) was left protruding from the urethral meatus without securing it to the skin.
Figure 2: Cystoscopy image

Click here to view


All patients were discharged 2 days following the operation with prescriptions for prophylactic antibiotics for 1 week and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for 3 days. No alpha-blockers and anticholinergics were given until unbearable symptoms appeared affected quality of life.

The stent was removed between 7 and 10 days after the procedure and evaluated for postprocedure events.

If the length of the string is found to be reducing, the patient was called for the removal of the stent.

The pain was evaluated by USSQ[6] in both groups and proximal migration by X-ray [Figure 3] kidney ureter bladder.
Figure 3: Postoperative X-ray kidney ureter bladder

Click here to view


Patients were explained about stent in situ with string and how to remove it on her own or under supervision in the out-patient department.

Data were analyzed using Chi-square and Student's t-test.


   Results Top


In our study, Group A (DJ loop with string) had 51 patients and Group B (single J loop with string) had 47 patients. The mean age for Group A was 46.2 years and Group B was 44.7 years. The mean stone size in Group A was 10.06 mm and Group B was 9.7 mm.

Groups A and B had one case each of early stent expulsion and none had proximal migration of the stent. Group A had two cases of urinary tract infection and Group B had one case which resolved on antibiotics [Table 1].
Table 1: General Characteristics

Click here to view


Evaluating the USSQ questionnaire in both groups, with regard to pain, sleep disturbance (P = 0.04), pain at voiding (P = 0.03), and flank pain during voiding (P = 0.018) was statistically significant. In general health patient, difficulty with heavy weight physical activity (P = 0.02) [Table 2], urinary symptoms like urgency (P = 0.03), dysuria (P = 0.02), interference with life (P = 0.01), and quality impact overall (P = 0.016) was statistically significant between the two groups [Table 3].
Table 2: Ureteral symptom score questionnaire - pain

Click here to view
Table 3: Ureteral symptom score questionnaire - urinary symptoms

Click here to view


Feeling calm (P = 0.16), social life enjoyment (P = 0.26), and need for extra help (P = 0.008) were significant between both groups [Table 4]. In sexual matters, 13 patients (28%) in a single loop with string group had no active sex (conscious of the stent) and 6 patients (12%) had stopped intercourse due to stent-related symptoms, whereas in DJ with string group, 10 patients (20%) had no active sex life and 2 patients (4%) had stopped intercourse due to stent-related symptoms [Table 5].
Table 4: Ureteral symptom score questionnaire general health

Click here to view
Table 5: Ureteral symptom score questionnaire sexual matters

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Bockhalt et al. in their 6-week follow-up period, 34.3% of all patients had postprocedural stent events (PRE), including 37.2% and 33.3% of patients with and without extraction string, respectively (P = 0.64). PREs occurred equally in men with or without an extraction string (27.8 vs. 32.4%; P = 0.71), as well as women with and without an extraction string (44.0 vs. 34.3%; P = 0.39). In addition, the use of an extraction string resulted in an equivalent number of PREs between men and women (P = 0.28). Two women (4.7%) reported removing their stent prematurely on postoperative days 2 and 6, although neither episode resulted in an unscheduled appointment or need for the stent to be replaced. All patients, other than one man (2.3%) who refused to remove his own stent, removed their stent at home, with no patient having a retained stent at follow-up based on routine postoperative imaging (CT, plain film, or renal ultrasonography).[7]

Barnes et al. conducted a randomized study in 68 patients: 33 with stent string and 35 with no string. Surveys were returned by 42 of the 68 patients randomized (62%). There was no difference in “urinary symptoms,” “pain,” “general health,” or “work performance” between the groups on either POD 1, 6, or 6 weeks after stent removal. The mean pain score was 2.5 in those with a stent string and 3.1 in those with no string undergoing cystoscopy (P = 0.45). Of the 33 patients with a stent string, 5 (15%) inadvertently removed their stent before POD 7 (one male, four females) at 0–4 days postoperatively, none of which required replacement. In all, 32/33 patients (97%) with a stent string were able to remove their stent at home without difficulty, while one male patient with a stent string presented to the clinic for help with removal secondary to anxiety. There were no incidents of proximal stent migration requiring URS for stent removal.[5]

Kim et al. evaluated 89 patients, DJ stent with string and DJ stent without a string in cases of ureteric stones which included males and females where USSQ was used and was completed by 86 patients and 3 had inadvertent stent removal before the visit. Significant differences were observed between the groups for separate questions on “dysuria” and “difficulties with heavy physical activity” (2.96 vs. 2.36, P = 0.03, and 2.77 vs. 2.18, P = 0.04, respectively). All patients who completed the USSQ, except one in the string group, answered “no active sexual life.” Among them, 22 patients checked “stopped sexual intercourse after insertion of stent,” which was “due to a stent-related problem” in 17 patients and was significantly higher than that in the no string group (77% vs. 44.4%, P = 0.03). Male patients in the string and no string groups showed significant higher urinary symptom scores (33.14 vs. 25.87, P = 0.006, and 29.69 vs. 26.26, P = 0.012). No differences were found between the two sex subgroups in the other domains of pain, general health, or work performance. The mean pain score was 2.94 in those with string stents and 4.23 in those with no string stents who underwent the flexible cystoscopic removal procedure (P = 0.005). No patient suffered from a febrile urinary tract infection requiring additional antibiotic treatment or a therapeutic procedure.[8]

Oliver et al. did a systematic review in 2018 on ureteric stents on extraction string and summary of complications is tabulated in [Table 6]. Most of the studies had no difference in pain and urinary scores.[9]
Table 6: Comparative studies

Click here to view


Doerch et al. in 2018 did a study to examine the safety and effectiveness of the use of a stent with a string attached after URS. Complications, like urinary retention or obstruction and stent migration, were rare in both groups. The patient's ability to self-remove stents was adequate. In the string group, two were unable to remove their stents, due to fear of removing their stents, and required a return to the office for stent removal. Three patients removed their stents too early. Two patients presented with flank pain to the emergency department managed by stent removal and symptomatic treatment.[10]


   Conclusions Top


This study concludes that a single loop stent with string can be equally effective as to conventional DJ stent with string with lesser complications, easy removal, and avoidance of procedure. Most studies done are using conventional DJ stent with string and conventional DJ without strings, however we could not come across any study with a single loop with string. Randomized control trials are needed to conclude the precise effectiveness and further use of single loop DJ stent with string. It leaves us with a thought that can we think of using it? Will it be helpful?

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Borboroglu PG, Amling CL, Schenkman NS, Monga M, Ward NY, Piper NY, et al. Ureteral stenting after ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: A multi-institutional prospective randomized controlled study assessing pain outcomes and complications. J Urol 2011;499:1651-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Siegel A, Altadonna V, Ellis D, Hulbert W, Elder J, Duckett J. Simplified method of indwelling ureteral stent removal. Urology 1986;28:429.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck C, Gallucci M, et al. 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 2007;178:2418-34.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Assimos DG, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline. J Urol 2016;196:1153-69.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Barnes KT, Bing MT, Tracy CR. Do ureteric stent extraction strings affect stent-related quality of life or complications after ureteroscopy for urolithiasis: A prospective randomised control trial. BJU Int 2014;113:605-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Joshi HB, Newns N, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr., Timoney AG. Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire: Development and validation of a multidimensional quality of life measure. J Urol 2003;169:1060-4.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Bockholt NA, Wild TT, Gupta A, Tracy CR. Ureteric stent placement with extraction string: No strings attached? BJU Int 2012;110:E1069-73.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Kim DJ, Son JH, Jang SH, Lee JW, Cho DS, Lim CH. Rethinking of ureteral stent removal using an extraction string; what patients feel and what is patients' preference? A randomized controlled study. BMC Urol 2015;15:121.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Oliver R, Wells H, Traxer O, Knoll T, Aboumarzouk O, Biyani CS, et al. Ureteric stents on extraction strings: A systematic review of literature. Urolithiasis 2018;46:129-36.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Doersch KM, Elmekresh AM, Machen GL, El Tayeb M. The use of a string with a stent for self-removal following ureteroscopy: A safe practice to remain. Arab J Urol 2018;16:435-40.  Back to cited text no. 10
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
     Introduction
     Subjects and Methods
     Results
     Discussion
     Conclusions
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed488    
    Printed13    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded42    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal