Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 628–635 | Cite as

Comparison of single and tandem ureteral stenting for malignant ureteral obstruction: a prospective study of 104 patients

  • Kao-Lang Liu
  • Bo-Ching Lee
  • Jian-De Ye
  • Yu-Hsuan Chang
  • Chin-Chen Chang
  • Kuo-How Huang
  • Yuan-Ju Lee
  • Yeun-Chung Chang
Interventional
  • 118 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare single and tandem ureteral stenting in the management of malignant ureteral obstruction (MUO).

Methods

Our hospital’s institutional review board approved this prospective study. Between November 2014 and June 2017, single ureteral stenting was performed in 56 patients (94 renal units) and tandem ureteral stenting in 48 patients (63 renal units) for MUO. A comparative analysis of the technical success rate, patient survival, stent patency, and complications was performed.

Results

Similar demographic data were observed in patients receiving either single or tandem ureteral stenting. The technical success rate was 93.6% (88/94) for single ureteral stenting and 95.2% (60/63) for tandem ureteral stenting. There was no difference in overall survival between patients receiving single or tandem ureteral stenting (p = 0.41), but the duration of stent patency in tandem ureteral stenting was significantly longer (p = 0.022). The mean patency time was 176.7 ± 21.3 days for single ureteral stenting, and 214.7 ± 21.0 days for tandem ureteral stenting. The complications of ureteral stenting were urinary tract infection (n = 18), lower urinary tract symptoms (n = 5), haematuria (n = 3), and stent migration (n = 1).

Conclusions

Tandem ureteral stenting is a safe and feasible treatment for MUO, and had better efficacy compared to single ureteral stenting.

Key Points

• Ureteral stenting is an established treatment for the management of malignant ureteral obstruction (MUO)

• Prospective single-centre study showed that tandem ureteral stenting is a safe and feasible treatment for MUO

• Tandem ureteral stenting provides longer stent patency compared to single ureteral stenting in patient with MUO

Keywords

Humans Hydronephrosis Prospective studies Stents Ureteral obstruction 

Abbreviations

MUO

Malignant ureteral obstruction

PCN

Percutaneous nephrostomy

Notes

Funding

This study has received funding from the Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 105-2314-B-002-092).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Kao-Lang Liu.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from enrolled patients.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Prospective

• Prognostic study

• Performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Kouba E, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS (2008) Management of ureteral obstruction due to advanced malignancy: optimizing therapeutic and palliative outcomes. J Urol 180:444–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wong LM, Cleeve LK, Milner AD, Pitman AG (2007) Malignant ureteral obstruction: outcomes after intervention. Have things changed? J Urol 178:178–183 discussion 183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feng MI, Bellman GC, Shapiro CE (1999) Management of ureteral obstruction secondary to pelvic malignancies. J Endourol 13:521–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sharer W, Grayhack JT, Graham J (1978) Palliative urinary diversion for malignant ureteral obstruction. J Urol 120:162–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fiuk J, Bao Y, Calleary JG, Schwartz BF, Denstedt JD (2015) The use of internal stents in chronic ureteral obstruction. J Urol 193:1092–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chung SY, Stein RJ, Landsittel D et al (2004) 15-year experience with the management of extrinsic ureteral obstruction with indwelling ureteral stents. J Urol 172:592–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ganatra AM, Loughlin KR (2005) The management of malignant ureteral obstruction treated with ureteral stents. J Urol 174:2125–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosevear HM, Kim SP, Wenzler DL, Faerber GJ, Roberts WW, Wolf JS Jr (2007) Retrograde ureteral stents for extrinsic ureteral obstruction: nine years' experience at University of Michigan. Urology 70:846–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yossepowitch O, Lifshitz DA, Dekel Y et al (2001) Predicting the success of retrograde stenting for managing ureteral obstruction. J Urol 166:1746–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu JS, Hrebinko RL (1998) The use of 2 ipsilateral ureteral stents for relief of ureteral obstruction from extrinsic compression. J Urol 159:179–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kilciler M, Erdemir F, Bedir S et al (2005) Using two ipsilateral double j ureteral stents for extrinsic ureteral obstruction due to colon carcinoma. Urol Int 75:319–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen HC, Shen SH, Wang JH et al (2011) Parallel second stent placement for refractory ureteral stent malfunction in malignant ureteral obstruction. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:1012–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elsamra SE, Motato H, Moreira DM et al (2013) Tandem ureteral stents for the decompression of malignant and benign obstructive uropathy. J Endourol 27:1297–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Varnavas M, Bolgeri M, Mukhtar S, Anson K (2016) The role of tandem double-J ureteral stents in the management of malignant ureteral obstruction. J Endourol 30:465–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ozyer U, Dirim A (2017) Tandem ureteral stents in the management of double-J stent dysfunction in gynecological malignancies. Diagn Interv Imaging 98:601–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cordeiro MD, Coelho RF, Chade DC et al (2016) A prognostic model for survival after palliative urinary diversion for malignant ureteric obstruction: a prospective study of 208 patients. BJU Int 117:266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ishioka J, Kageyama Y, Inoue M, Higashi Y, Kihara K (2008) Prognostic model for predicting survival after palliative urinary diversion for ureteral obstruction: analysis of 140 cases. J Urol 180:618–621 discussion 621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bahu R, Chaftari AM, Hachem RY et al (2013) Nephrostomy tube related pyelonephritis in patients with cancer: epidemiology. infection rate and risk factors. J Urol 189:130–135Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaskarelis IS, Papadaki MG, Malliaraki NE, Robotis ED, Malagari KS, Piperopoulos PN (2001) Complications of percutaneous nephrostomy, percutaneous insertion of ureteral endoprosthesis. and replacement procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 24:224–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hyams ES, Shah O (2008) Malignant extrinsic ureteral obstruction: a survey of urologists and medical oncologists regarding treatment patterns and preferences. Urology 72:51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Monsky WL, Molloy C, Jin B et al (2013) Quality-of-life assessment after palliative interventions to manage malignant ureteral obstruction. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36:1355–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Izumi K, Mizokami A, Maeda Y, Koh E, Namiki M (2011) Current outcome of patients with ureteral stents for the management of malignant ureteral obstruction. J Urol 185:556–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosenberg BH, Bianco FJ Jr, Wood DP Jr, Triest JA (2005) Stent-change therapy in advanced malignancies with ureteral obstruction. J Endourol 19:63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dyer RB, Chen MY, Zagoria RJ, Regan JD, Hood CG, Kavanagh PV (2002) Complications of ureteral stent placement. Radiographics 22:1005–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rotariu P, Yohannes P, Alexianu M et al (2001) Management of malignant extrinsic compression of the ureter by simultaneous placement of two ipsilateral ureteral stents. J Endourol 15:979–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fromer DL, Shabsigh A, Benson MC, Gupta M (2002) Simultaneous multiple double pigtail stents for malignant ureteral obstruction. Urology 59:594–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Khoo CCK, Abboudi H, Cartwright R, El-Husseiny T, Dasgupta R (2018) Metallic ureteric stents in malignant ureteric obstruction: a systematic review. Urology.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.01.019
  28. 28.
    Chow PM, Chiang IN, Chen CY et al (2015) Malignant ureteral obstruction: functional duration of metallic versus polymeric ureteral stents. PLoS One 10:e0135566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim JH, Song K, Jo MK, Park JW (2012) Palliative care of malignant ureteral obstruction with polytetrafluoroethylene membrane-covered self-expandable metallic stents: initial experience. Korean J Urol 53:625–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chung KJ, Park BH, Park B et al (2013) Efficacy and safety of a novel, double-layered, coated, self-expandable metallic mesh stent (Uventa) in malignant ureteral obstructions. J Endourol 27:930–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chung HH, Kim MD, Won JY et al (2014) Multicenter experience of the newly designed covered metallic ureteral stent for malignant ureteral occlusion: comparison with double J stent insertion. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 37:463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Klarskov P, Nordling J, Nielsen JB (2005) Experience with Memokath 051 ureteral stent. Scand J Urol Nephrol 39:169–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Agrawal S, Brown CT, Bellamy EA, Kulkarni R (2009) The thermo-expandable metallic ureteric stent: an 11-year follow-up. BJU Int 103:372–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kim KS, Choi S, Choi YS et al (2014) Comparison of efficacy and safety between a segmental thermo-expandable metal alloy spiral stent (Memokath 051) and a self-expandable covered metallic stent (UVENTA) in the management of ureteral obstructions. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 24:550–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moskovitz B, Halachmi S, Nativ O (2012) A new self-expanding, large-caliber ureteral stent: results of a multicenter experience. J Endourol 26:1523–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Elsamra SE, Leavitt DA, Motato HA et al (2015) Stenting for malignant ureteral obstruction: Tandem, metal or metal-mesh stents. Int J Urol 22:629–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chitale SV, Scott-Barrett S, Ho ET, Burgess NA (2002) The management of ureteric obstruction secondary to malignant pelvic disease. Clin Radiol 57:1118–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Song Y, Fei X, Song Y (2012) Percutaneous nephrostomy versus indwelling ureteral stent in the management of gynecological malignancies. Int J Gynecol Cancer 22:697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Uthappa MC, Cowan NC (2005) Retrograde or antegrade double-pigtail stent placement for malignant ureteric obstruction? Clin Radiol 60:608–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hackethorn JC, Boren SR, Dotter CT, Rosch J (1985) Antegrade internal ureteral stenting: a technical refinement. Radiology 156:827–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lu DS, Papanicolaou N, Girard M, Lee MJ, Yoder IC (1994) Percutaneous internal ureteral stent placement: review of technical issues and solutions in 50 consecutive cases. Clin Radiol 49:256–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sharma SD, Persad RA, Haq A et al (1996) A review of antegrade stenting in the management of the obstructed kidney. Br J Urol 78:511–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Giannarini G, Keeley FX Jr, Valent F 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 107:648–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hausegger KA, Portugaller HR (2006) Percutaneous nephrostomy and antegrade ureteral stenting: technique-indications-complications. Eur Radiol 16:2016–2030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Richter S, Ringel A, Shalev M, Nissenkorn I (2000) The indwelling ureteric stent: a 'friendly' procedure with unfriendly high morbidity. BJU Int 85:408–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Radecka E, Magnusson A (2004) Complications associated with percutaneous nephrostomies. A retrospective study. Acta Radiol 45:184–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hung SC, Chiang IN, Huang CY, Pu YS (2018) The effectiveness and durability of ureteral tumor stent, the national taiwan university hospital experience. Urol Sci 29:7–11Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical ImagingNational Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University College of MedicineTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Medical ImagingNational Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin BranchDouliu CityTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of UrologyNational Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University College of MedicineTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations