Top

Published in:

01-09-2021 | Silicone | Original Article

Silicone-hydrocoated ureteral stents encrustation and biofilm formation after 3-week dwell time: results of a prospective randomized multicenter clinical study

Authors: Yazeed Barghouthy, Oliver Wiseman, Eugenio Ventimiglia, Julien Letendre, Jonathan Cloutier, Michel Daudon, Francois Kleinclauss, Steeve Doizi, Mariela Corrales, Olivier Traxer

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 9/2021

Abstract

Objective

To explore the risk of encrustation and biofilm formation for silicone ureteral stents compared to percuflex polymer stents, through a randomized multicenter study.

Patients and methods

Design, setting and participants: A Multicenter, prospective, randomized, single blind, comparative study of hydrocoated silicone stent (Coloplast Imajin^® hydro) versus Percuflex™ Plus stent (Boston Scientific), in 141 patients treated by flexible URS for a kidney stone. The study had ethical committee approval in the respective hospitals. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Endpoints related to encrustation were biofilm formation and mineral encrustation after a period of 3-week indwelling time. They were evaluated at removal through a scoring scale of ureteral stents encrustation, infrared spectroscopy and optical microscopy of inner and outer surfaces of tips, angles and along the stent’s body. Comparison was performed using ANOVA.

Results

119 stents were available after removal for analysis, 56 in the silicone and 63 in the Percuflex TM Plus group. Mean dwelling duration was 21.8 days for silicone, 22.1 days for PercuflexTM Plus. There was significantly more biofilm on Percuflex™ Plus compared to silicone (1.24 ± 0.08 vs 0.93 ± 0.09, p = 0.0021), and more mineral encrustation (1.22 ± 0.10 vs 0.78 ± 0.11, p = 0.0048), respectively.

Conclusions

This multicenter randomized study shows that silicone-hydrocoated stents are less prone to encrustation than PercuflexTM Plus after a 3-week dwelling period and confirms the low encrustation potential of silicone.

Available only for authorised users

Mosayyebi A, Manes C, Carugo D, Somani B (2018) Advances in ureteral stent design and materials. Springer Curr Urol Rep 19(5):35CrossRef

Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Thomas K et al. EAU guidelines on urolithiasis 2018

Finney RP (1978) Experience with new double J ureteral catheter stent. J Urol 120:678–681CrossRef

Liatsikos E, Kallidonis P, Stolzenburg J (2009) Ureteral stents : past, present and future. Exp Rev Med Dev 6:313–324CrossRef

Joshi HB, Newns N, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FXJ, Timoney AG (2003) Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire: development and validation of a multidimensional quality of life measure. J Urol 169:1060–1064. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000049198.53424.1dCrossRefPubMed

Tunney MM, Keane PF, Jones DS et al (1996) Comparative assessment of ureteral stent biomaterial encrustation. Biomaterials 17:1541–1546CrossRef

Desgrandchamps F, Daudon M, Le Duc A et al (1997) An in vitro comparison of urease induced encrustation of JJ stents in human urine. Br J Urol 79:24–27CrossRef

Keane PF, Bonner MC, Johnston SR et al (1994) Characterization of biofilm and encrustation on ureteric stents in vivo. Br J Urol 73:687–691CrossRef

Bariol S, Farebrother T, Ruthven S et al (2003) Comparison of urinary stone and stent encrustation: biochemical analysis. J Endourol 17:741–743CrossRef

10.

Rouprêt M, Daudon M, Traxer O et al (2005) Can ureteral stent encrustation analysis predict urinary stone composition? J Urol 66:246–251CrossRef

11.

Cormio L, Talja M, Koivusalo A, Makisalo H, Wolff H, Ruutu M (1995) Biocompatibility of various indwelling double-J stents. J Urol 153(2):494–496. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-199502000-00069CrossRefPubMed

12.

Candela JV, Bellman GC (1997) Ureteral stents: impact of diameter and composition on patient symptoms. J Endourol 11(1):45–47. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1997.11.45CrossRefPubMed

13.

Denstedt JD, Wollin TA, Reid G (1998) Biomaterials used in urology: current issues of biocompatibility, infection, and encrustation. J Endourol 12(6):493–500. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1998.12.493CrossRefPubMed

14.

Tunney M, Gorman S (2002) Evaluation of a poly(vinyl pyrollidone)-coated biomaterial for urological use. Biomaterials 23(23):4601–4608. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-9612(02)00206-5CrossRefPubMed

15.

Wiseman O, Ventimiglia E, Traxer O (2020) Effects of silicone hydrocoated double loop ureteral stent on symptoms and quality of life in patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stone: a randomized multicenter clinical study. J Urol 204(4):769–777. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001098 ((Epub 2020 May 5))CrossRefPubMed

16.

White IR, Horton NJ, Carpenter J, Statistics Reader in Medical, Social, Pocock SJ (2011) Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d40CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

European Medicines Agency (2010) Guideline on missing data in confirmatory clinical trials

18.

Choong SKS, Wood S, Whitfiel HN (2000) A model to quantify encrustation on ureteric stents, urethral catheters and polymers intended for urological use. BJU Int 86:414–421CrossRef

19.

Mardis HK, Kroeger RM, Morton JJ, Donovan JM (1993) Comparative evaluation of materials used for internal ureteral stents. J Endourol 7(2):105–115. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1993.7.105CrossRefPubMed

20.

Paick SH, Park HK, Oh SJ, Kim HH (2003) Characteristics of bacterial colonization and urinary tract infection after indwelling of double-J ureteral stent. Urology 62(2):214–217CrossRef

21.

Bouzidi H, Traxer O, Dore B, Amiel J, Hadjadj H, Conort P, Daudon M et al (2008) Characteristics of encrustation of ureteric stents in patients with urinary stones. Prog Urol 18:230–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2008.02.004CrossRefPubMed

22.

Bell ML, Kenward MG, Fairclough DL, Horton NJ (2013) Differential dropout and bias in randomised controlled trials: when it matters and when it may not. BMJ 346:e8668. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8668CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Little RJ, D’Agostino R, Cohen ML, Dickersin K, Emerson SS, Farrar JT et al (2012) The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 367:1355–1360. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1203730CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Silicone-hydrocoated ureteral stents encrustation and biofilm formation after 3-week dwell time: results of a prospective randomized multicenter clinical study
Authors: Yazeed Barghouthy
Oliver Wiseman
Eugenio Ventimiglia
Julien Letendre
Jonathan Cloutier
Michel Daudon
Francois Kleinclauss
Steeve Doizi
Mariela Corrales
Olivier Traxer
Publication date: 01-09-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Silicone
Urolithiasis
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 9/2021
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03646-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Silicone-hydrocoated ureteral stents encrustation and biofilm formation after 3-week dwell time: results of a prospective randomized multicenter clinical study

Abstract

Objective

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2021

A qualitative framework of non-selection factors for cytoreductive nephrectomy

The efficacy and safety of Serenoa repens extract for the treatment of patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Does post prostatectomy decipher score predict biochemical recurrence and impact care?

En-bloc resection of bladder tumour as primary treatment for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: routine implementation in a multi-centre setting

Global change of surgical and oncological clinical practice in urology during early COVID-19 pandemic

Every ureteral stone deserves conventional management prior to intervention