Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 8/2015

Open Access 01-08-2015 | Invited Review

Changing the double-pigtail stent by a new suture stent to improve patient’s quality of life: a prospective study

Authors: Benoît Vogt, Arnaud Desgrippes, François-Noël Desfemmes

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 8/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Double-pigtail stent intolerance reduces patient’s quality of life. By decreasing the amount of material within the bladder, it should be possible to attenuate stent’s symptoms. We evaluated the tolerance of a new stent with a dedicated questionnaire.

Methods

The major innovation of the pigtail suture stent (PSS) is in the replacement of the lower part of the double-pigtail stent with a 0.3F suture. A total of 79 consecutive patients agreed to be fitted with a PSS. The double-pigtail stents of 24 patients complaining strongly of symptoms were replaced with PSS (group 1), and 55 other patients were fitted directly with the PSS after an ureteral endoscopic intervention (group 2). The questionnaire was prospectively administered to patients at baseline and Day 15 post-placement.

Results

All questionnaires were returned. In group 1, the replacement of the double-pigtail stent with a PSS significantly decreased urinary symptom scores (35.2 ± 7.5 vs. 23.6 ± 5.4; p = 2 × 10−6) and pain scores (11.0 ± 3.9 vs. 4.9 ± 3.1; p = 1 × 10−7). In group 1, the baseline scores were not significantly different from those of control group with double-pigtail stent. In group 2, the urinary scores with PSS were significantly different from those of baseline without stent. The scores of the two groups fitted with a PSS were not significantly different at Day 15 post-placement. Unexpectedly, following PSS implantation, we observe a clear dilation of the ureter without inflammation around the suture.

Conclusions

The PSS significantly decreases stent’s symptoms and constitutes a medical advance in the domain of ureteral stent tolerance.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG et al (2003) Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 169:1065–1069PubMedCrossRef Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG et al (2003) Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 169:1065–1069PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Chambade D, Thibault F, Niang L, Lakmichi MA, Gattegno B et al (2006) [Study of the safety of double J ureteric stents]. Article in French. Prog Urol 16:445–449 Chambade D, Thibault F, Niang L, Lakmichi MA, Gattegno B et al (2006) [Study of the safety of double J ureteric stents]. Article in French. Prog Urol 16:445–449
4.
go back to reference Vogt B, Desgrippes A, Desfemmes FN (2014) [Pigtail suture stent: decisive progress towards double-pigtail stent tolerance and unexpected properties of the suture in the ureter]. Article in French. Prog Urol 24:441–450. doi:10.1016/j.purol.2013.12.007 Vogt B, Desgrippes A, Desfemmes FN (2014) [Pigtail suture stent: decisive progress towards double-pigtail stent tolerance and unexpected properties of the suture in the ureter]. Article in French. Prog Urol 24:441–450. doi:10.​1016/​j.​purol.​2013.​12.​007
5.
go back to reference Joshi HB, Newns N, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG (2009) Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire: development and validation of a multidimensional quality of life measure. J Urol 169:1060–1064CrossRef Joshi HB, Newns N, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG (2009) Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire: development and validation of a multidimensional quality of life measure. J Urol 169:1060–1064CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Puichaud A, Larré S, Bruyère F, Auger J, Bret N, Chevreste A, Doré B, Briffaux R, Keeley F, Irani J (2010) [The French linguistic validation of the Ureteric Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ)]. Article in French. Prog Urol 20:210–213. doi:10.1016/j.purol.2009.09.007 Puichaud A, Larré S, Bruyère F, Auger J, Bret N, Chevreste A, Doré B, Briffaux R, Keeley F, Irani J (2010) [The French linguistic validation of the Ureteric Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ)]. Article in French. Prog Urol 20:210–213. doi:10.​1016/​j.​purol.​2009.​09.​007
8.
go back to reference Giannarini G, Keeley FX Jr, Valent F, Manassero F, Mogorovich A et al (2011) Predictors of morbidity in patients with indwelling ureteric stents: results of a prospective study using the validated Ureteric Stent Symptoms Questionnaire. BJU Int 107:648–654. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09482.x PubMedCrossRef Giannarini G, Keeley FX Jr, Valent F, Manassero F, Mogorovich A et al (2011) Predictors of morbidity in patients with indwelling ureteric stents: results of a prospective study using the validated Ureteric Stent Symptoms Questionnaire. BJU Int 107:648–654. doi:10.​1111/​j.​1464-410X.​2010.​09482.​x PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Joshi HB, Chitale SV, Nagarajan M, Irving SO, Browning AJ et al (2005) A prospective randomized single-blind comparison of ureteral stents composed of firm and soft polymer. J Urol 174:2303–2306PubMedCrossRef Joshi HB, Chitale SV, Nagarajan M, Irving SO, Browning AJ et al (2005) A prospective randomized single-blind comparison of ureteral stents composed of firm and soft polymer. J Urol 174:2303–2306PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Dunn MD, Portis AJ, Kahn SA, Yan Y, Shalhav AL et al (2000) Clinical effectiveness of new stent design: randomized single-blind comparison of tail and double-pigtail stents. J Endourol 14:195–202PubMedCrossRef Dunn MD, Portis AJ, Kahn SA, Yan Y, Shalhav AL et al (2000) Clinical effectiveness of new stent design: randomized single-blind comparison of tail and double-pigtail stents. J Endourol 14:195–202PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Damiano R, Autorino R, De Sio M, Cantiello F, Quarto G et al (2005) Does the size of ureteral stent impact urinary symptoms and quality of life? A prospective randomized study. Eur Urol 48:673–678PubMedCrossRef Damiano R, Autorino R, De Sio M, Cantiello F, Quarto G et al (2005) Does the size of ureteral stent impact urinary symptoms and quality of life? A prospective randomized study. Eur Urol 48:673–678PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Irani J, Siquier J, Pirès C, Lefebvre O, Doré B et al (1999) Symptom characteristics and the development of tolerance with time in patients with indwelling double-pigtail ureteric stents. BJU Int 84:276–279PubMedCrossRef Irani J, Siquier J, Pirès C, Lefebvre O, Doré B et al (1999) Symptom characteristics and the development of tolerance with time in patients with indwelling double-pigtail ureteric stents. BJU Int 84:276–279PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Tong JC, Sparrow EM, Abraham JP (2007) Numerical simulation of the urine flow in a stented ureter. J Biomech Eng 129:187–192PubMedCrossRef Tong JC, Sparrow EM, Abraham JP (2007) Numerical simulation of the urine flow in a stented ureter. J Biomech Eng 129:187–192PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Olweny EO, Portis AJ, Afane JS, Brewer AV, Shalhav AL et al (2000) Flow characteristics of 3 unique ureteral stents: investigation of a Poiseuille flow pattern. J Urol 164:2099–2103PubMedCrossRef Olweny EO, Portis AJ, Afane JS, Brewer AV, Shalhav AL et al (2000) Flow characteristics of 3 unique ureteral stents: investigation of a Poiseuille flow pattern. J Urol 164:2099–2103PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Ponsot Y, Sawhney S, Carmel M (1994) [Simple modification of the double J stent to improve its clinical acceptability]. Article in French. Prog Urol 4: 420–422 Ponsot Y, Sawhney S, Carmel M (1994) [Simple modification of the double J stent to improve its clinical acceptability]. Article in French. Prog Urol 4: 420–422
20.
go back to reference Dauleh MI, Byrne DJ, Baxby K (1995) Non-refluxing minimal irritation ureteric stent. BJU Int 76:795–796CrossRef Dauleh MI, Byrne DJ, Baxby K (1995) Non-refluxing minimal irritation ureteric stent. BJU Int 76:795–796CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Hubert KC, Palmer JS (2005) Passive dilation by ureteral stenting before ureteroscopy: eliminating the need for active dilation. J Urol 174:1079–1080PubMedCrossRef Hubert KC, Palmer JS (2005) Passive dilation by ureteral stenting before ureteroscopy: eliminating the need for active dilation. J Urol 174:1079–1080PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Miernik A, Schoenthaler M, Wilhelm K, Wetterauer U, Zyczkowski M et al (2014) Combined semirigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy via a large ureteral access sheath for kidney stones >2 cm: a bicentric prospective assessment. World J Urol 32:697–702. doi:10.1007/s00345-013-1126-z PubMedCrossRef Miernik A, Schoenthaler M, Wilhelm K, Wetterauer U, Zyczkowski M et al (2014) Combined semirigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy via a large ureteral access sheath for kidney stones >2 cm: a bicentric prospective assessment. World J Urol 32:697–702. doi:10.​1007/​s00345-013-1126-z PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Changing the double-pigtail stent by a new suture stent to improve patient’s quality of life: a prospective study
Authors
Benoît Vogt
Arnaud Desgrippes
François-Noël Desfemmes
Publication date
01-08-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 8/2015
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1394-2

Other articles of this Issue 8/2015

World Journal of Urology 8/2015 Go to the issue