Comparison of efficacy and bladder irritation symptoms among three different ureteral stents: A double-blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Objective. Various ureteral stents have been developed to reduce ureteral stent-related discomfort. The aim of this prospective, randomized study was to compare the efficacy and morbidity of three different ureteral stents. Materials and methods. Between June 2012 and May 2013, patients who underwent ureteral stent insertion after ureteroscopic stone removal were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive three different stents (group 1, Endo-Sof™ double-pigtail ureteral stent, Cook Medical; group 2, Enhanced Durometer loop stent, Bioteq; group 3, Polaris™ Ultra ureteral stent, Boston Scientific). Ninety patients who met the inclusion criteria were administered the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS) preoperatively, after 2 weeks with the stent in situ and 4 weeks after its removal. The Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAPS), presence of gross hematuria and ultrasound for hydronephrosis grade were checked at 2 weeks with the stent in situ and 4 weeks after its removal. Results. After stent insertion, the degree of hydronephrosis was not significantly different among the three groups. Patients in group 3 showed significantly less increase in the total IPSS and storage symptom subscores than did those in the other groups. Mean VAPS after ureteral stent insertion was significantly lower in group 3 than in the other groups. The presence of gross hematuria after ureteral stent insertion occurred more frequently in groups 1 and 2 than in group 3. Conclusions. The Polaris Ultra ureteral stent showed similar efficacy and favorable tolerability in regard to bladder irritation symptoms, stent-related pain and presence of gross hematuria compared with other stents.

Keywords:

• Complications
• randomized controlled trial
• stents
• ureter

Declaration of interest: Bum Soo Kim is a consultant speaker for Boston Scientific. No funding/support was received; no role was played by the sponsor.