Comparison of single and tandem ureteral stenting for malignant ureteral obstruction: a prospective study of 104 patients
- 167 Downloads
The aim of this study was to compare single and tandem ureteral stenting in the management of malignant ureteral obstruction (MUO).
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.
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).
Tandem ureteral stenting is a safe and feasible treatment for MUO, and had better efficacy compared to single ureteral stenting.
• 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
KeywordsHumans Hydronephrosis Prospective studies Stents Ureteral obstruction
Malignant ureteral obstruction
This study has received funding from the Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 105-2314-B-002-092).
Compliance with ethical standards
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.
Written informed consent was obtained from enrolled patients.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
• Prognostic study
• Performed at one institution
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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