Comparation of intraureteral stent and conventional stent at different stages: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2023 Dec;75(6):696-710. doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.23.05233-3. Epub 2023 Jun 23.

Abstract

Introduction: Stent related symptom (SRS) is the most common adverse effect of ureteral stenting. In recent years, many efforts have been made to develope modified ureteral stents to ameliorate SRS. It has been reported that intraureteral stents have the potential to improve the tail end adverse effect of the bladder and alleviate SRS. However, there still lack of evidence for the efficacy and the safety of clinically applying intraureteral stents. The aim of this work is to investigate the efficacy and safety of intraureteral stents.

Evidence acquisition: A systematic review was performed by using the PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library. The studies published before February 2023 were included. The study selection was following the guideline from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). The searching strategy was: "Pigtail suture stent" OR "Intra-ureteric stent" OR "Suture Stent" OR "Intraureteral stent" AND "Ureteroscopy" OR "Urinary calculi" OR "Stent-related symptoms" OR "Lower urinary tract symptoms". The data from randomized clinical trials which meet the selection criteria were extracted. Revman 5.4 was employed to proceed the meta-analysis.

Evidence synthesis: A total of six randomized clinical trials of intraureteral stents were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. According to the different investigation time, the results could be divided into four stages: early-stage, middle-stage, late-stage, and long-term evaluation. Urinary symptoms, pain score, and general health were significantly improved in intraureteral stents group at middle stage. For late-stage, intraureteral stent achieved better outcomes in urinary symptoms index, VAS score, quality of life, general health, and pain score. However, for early-stage and long-term evaluation, there was no significant difference between two groups.

Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis reveal that regardless of the stage of treatment, the efficacy and safety of intraureteral stent are no worse than that of conventional stent. During 7-14 days postoperation, which is the most commonly time for clinically using ureteral stent, most of the outcomes of intraureteral stent are better than those of conventional stent. Hence, it is confirmed that intraureteral stent is worth for more clinical study and application.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Humans
  • Pain / etiology
  • Quality of Life*
  • Stents / adverse effects
  • Ureter* / surgery
  • Ureteroscopy / adverse effects