Ureteric stenting with magnetic retrieval: an alternative to traditional methods

  • John A. O’KellyEmail author
  • Usman M. Haroon
  • Abdul J. Rauf
  • Kieran J. Breen
  • Barry B. McGuire
  • Ijaz A. Cheema
  • Liza McLornan
  • James C. Forde
Original Article



Ureteric stents are frequently placed following endo-urological procedures. These stents cause significant morbidity for patients. Standard ureteric stents are removed by flexible cystoscopy. This procedure can be unpleasant for patients and requires additional resources. A newly designed magnetic stent allows removal in an outpatient setting. The aim of our study is to compare the magnetic stent and standard ureteric stents with regard to morbidity, pain on stent removal and cost-effectiveness.


This study was carried out across two sites between September 2016 and July 2017. In site A, a magnetic stent (Urotech, Black-Star®) is removed by magnetic retrieval device. Fifty consecutive patients completed the validated Ureteric Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) and visual analogue scale (VAS) at the time of stent removal. On site B, a soft polyurethane stent (Cook Universa) was removed by flexible cystoscopy. Fifty patients were identified retrospectively and completed questionnaires by post. Cost analysis was also performed.


One hundred questionnaires were included for analysis. No significant difference in stent morbidity as assessed by the USSQ was shown between both groups. Median duration of stenting was significantly shorter in the magnetic stent group (5.5 versus 21.5 days, p < 0.001). Mean pain on stent removal was significantly less with magnetic retrieval (2.9 versus 3.9, p < 0.05). Complication rates were similar in both groups. Cost analysis showed a cost saving of €203 per patient with the magnetic stent group.


Magnetic stents cause similar morbidity for patients compared with standard stents removed by flexible cystoscopy; they are associated with less pain at removal and are cost saving.


Double J stent Flexible cystoscopy JJ stent Magnetic stent Stent symptoms Ureteric stent Ureteroscopy 


Author contributions

JA O’Kelly: project development, data collection/management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing

UM Haroon: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing

A Rauf: data collection/management

KJ Breen: project management/manuscript writing/editing

BB Maguire: project development

IA Cheema: project development

L McLornan: project development

JC Forde: project development, manuscript writing/editing

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

This study has been approved by the ethical review board at both Connolly and Beaumont Hospitals and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.


  1. 1.
    Finney RP (1978) Experience with new double J ureteral catheter stent. J Urol 120(6):678–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nabi G, Cook J, N’Dow J, McClinton S (2007) Outcomes of stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 334(7593):572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Auge BK, Sarvis JA, L’Esperance JO, Preminger GM (2007) Practice patterns of ureteral stenting after routine ureteroscopic stone surgery: a survey of practicing urologists. J Endourol 21(11):1287–1291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harmon WJ, Sershon PD, Blute ML, Patterson DE, Segura JW (1997) Ureteroscopy: current practice and long-term complications. J Urol 157(1):28–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bockholt NA, Wild TT, Gupta A, Tracy CR (2012) Ureteric stent placement with extraction string: no strings attached? BJU Int 110(11 Pt C):E1069–E1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rassweiler MC, Michel MS, Ritter M, Honeck P (2017) Magnetic ureteral stent removal without cystoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. J Endourol 31:762–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rodriguez-Rubio FSGGSSCEF (2009) Patient tolerance during outpatient flexible cystoscopy--a prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing plain lubrication and lidocaine gel. Scand J Urol Nephrol 38(6):477–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oliver R, Wells H, Traxer O, Knoll T, Aboumarzouk O, Biyani CS et al (2016) Ureteric stents on extraction strings: a systematic review of literature. Urolithiasis 46(2): 129–136Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Macaluso JN Jr, Deutsch JS, Goodman JR, Appell RA, Prats LJ Jr, Wahl P (1989) The use of the Magnetip double-J ureteral stent in urological practice. J Urol 142(3):701–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG, Barry MJ (2003) Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 169(3):1065–1069 discussion 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lange D, Bidnur S, Hoag N, Chew BH (2015) Ureteral stent-associated complications--where we are and where we are going. Nat Rev Urol 12(1):17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leibovici D, Cooper A, Lindner A, Ostrowsky R, Kleinmann J, Velikanov S, Cipele H, Goren E, Siegel YI (2005) Ureteral stents: morbidity and impact on quality of life. Isr Med Assoc J 7(8):491–494Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aaronson DS, Walsh TJ, Smith JF, Davies BJ, Hsieh MH, Konety BR (2009) Meta-analysis: does lidocaine gel before flexible cystoscopy provide pain relief? BJU Int 104(4):506–509 discussion 9-10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abdulmajed Mi SIS (2011) Flexible cystoscopy removal of ureteric stent: is it painful? Br J Med Surg Urol 4(5):223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Damiano R, Autorino R, Esposito C, Cantiello F, Sacco R, de Sio M et al (2004) Stent positioning after ureteroscopy for urinary calculi: the question is still open. Eur Urol 46(3):381–387 discussion 7–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scarneciu I, Lupu S, Pricop C, Scarneciu C (2015) Morbidity and impact on quality of life in patients with indwelling ureteral stents: a 10-year clinical experience. Pak J Med Sci 31(3):522–526Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chew BH, Lange D (2016) Advances in ureteral stent development. Curr Opin Urol 26(3):277–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sevcenco S, Eredics K, Lusuardi L, Klingler HC (2018) Evaluation of pain perception associated with use of the magnetic-end ureteric double-J stent for short-term ureteric stenting. World J Urol 36(3):475–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barnes KT, Bing MT, Tracy CR (2014) Do ureteric stent extraction strings affect stent-related quality of life or complications after ureteroscopy for urolithiasis: a prospective randomised control trial. BJU Int 113(4):605–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim DJ, Son JH, Jang SH, Lee JW, Cho DS, Lim CH (2015) Rethinking of ureteral stent removal using an extraction string; what patients feel and what is patients’ preference? : a randomized controlled study. BMC Urol 15:121CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyJames Connolly Memorial HospitalDublin 15Ireland
  2. 2.Department of UrologyBeaumont HospitalDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations