The ureter provides a way for urine to flow from the kidney to the bladder. Peristalsis in the ureter partially forces the urine flow, along with hydrostatic pressure. Ureteral diseases and a double J stent, which is commonly inserted in a ureteral stenosis or occlusion, disturb normal peristalsis. Ineffective or no peristalsis could make the contour of the ureter a tube, a funnel, or a combination of the two. In this study, we investigated urine flow in the abnormal situation. We made three different, curved tubular, funnel-shaped, and undulated ureter models that were based on human anatomy. A numerical analysis of the urine flow rate and pattern in the ureter was performed for a combination of the three different ureters, with and without a ureteral stenosis and with four different types of double J stents. The three ureters showed a difference in urine flow rate and pattern. Luminal flow rate was affected by ureter shape. The side holes of a double J stent played a different role in detour, which depended on ureter geometry.

Ureteral stenosis presents with a narrowing in the ureter, due to an intrinsic or extrinsic ureteral disease, such as ureter cancer or retroperitoneal fibrosis. The placement of a double J stent in the upper urinary system is one of the most common treatments of ureteral stenosis, along with the insertion of a percutaneous nephrostomy tube into the renal pelvis. The effect that the side holes in a double J stent have on urine flow has been evaluated in a few studies using straight ureter models. In this study, urine flow through a double J stent's side holes was analyzed in curved ureter models, which were based on human anatomy. In ureteral stenosis, especially in severe ureteral stenosis, a stent with side holes had a positive effect on the luminal and total flow rates, compared with the rates for a stent without side holes. The more side holes a stent has, the greater the luminal and total flow rates. However, the angular positions of the side holes did not affect flow rate. In conclusion, the side holes in a double J stent had a positive effect on ureteral stenosis, and the effect became greater as the ureteral stenosis became more severe.

A double J stent (DJS) is used to alleviate the congestion of urine in the upper urinary tract when there is ureteral stenosis, which causes the interruption of normal urine flow and results in renal failure. The purpose of placing DJSs is to ensure sufficient urine flow in the ureter, but the DJS acts as a foreign body in the urinary system and sometimes acts as an obstacle in achieving sufficient urine flow. Here, to evaluate the performance of various sizes of DJSs, 5Fr (1.666 mm) to 8Fr (2.666 mm), in the ureter, silicon ureter models without stenosis, and a circulation setup were constructed. The total flow rates (TFRs) in the stented ureters were evaluated with an in vitro experiment. The TFRs in the 5Fr DJS were larger than those in the other sizes of DJS. As the size of DJS increased, the TFR decreased. Computational fluid dynamics was also applied to validate the experimental results. It was shown that the experimental results agreed well with the numerical results.

This study investigated which sizes of double-J stents are more effective in achieving an acceptable urine flow through stenotic and stented ureters. Sixty four computational fluid dynamics models of the combinations of two different gauge ureters (4.57 mm and 5.39 mm in diameter) with four different levels of ureteral and four different sizes of double-J stents were developed for the numerical analysis of urine flow in the ureter. Luminal, extraluminal, and total flow rates along the ureter were measured, and the flow patterns around the ports and side holes were investigated. For the 4.57-mm ureter, the total flow rate for each gauge of stent was 23–63 mL/h (5 Fr), 20–47 mL/h (6 Fr), 17–35 mL/h (7 Fr), and 16–26 mL/h (8 Fr) and for the 5.39-mm ureter, the total flow rate for each gauge of stent was 43–147 mL/h (5 Fr), 36–116 mL/h (6 Fr), 29–92 mL/h (7 Fr), and 26–71 mL/h (8 Fr). With a 74% stenosis, all stents allowed a low flow rate, and the differences in flow rates between the stents were small. At the other levels of stenosis, 5 Fr stents allowed greater flow rates than the 8 Fr stents. The luminal flow rate increased just before the area of stenosis and decreased after the stenosis because of the increase and decrease in the luminal flow through the side holes before and after the stenosis. Therefore, a larger double-J stent is not favorable in achieving an acceptable urine flow through the stenotic and stented ureters. The results in this study could not be necessarily correlated with clinical situation because peristalsis, viscosity of the urine and real format of the ureter were not considered in our model. In vivo experiments are necessary for confirmation of our findings. Double J stents are commonly used in the ureteral stenosis or occlusion, especially due to ureter stones which obstruct the flow of urine. Clinicians choose the size of double J stent on the basis of their clinical experience. Here, we tried to know which sizes of double J stents are better for sufficient urine flow. According to various documents that try to determine the optimal shape of double J stents to increase the urine flow through the ureter, mostly bigger stent is recommended to occur maximum urine flow. However, in case of ureter with stenosis or occlusion, the right size of the double J stent may vary depending on the degree of stenosis in the ureter. To find appropriate stent size for the ureter with stenosis, computational fluid dynamics was conducted. This study shows that smaller diameter stents are more appropriate than larger diameter stents depending on the situation.

No abstract