Comparison of silicone versus polyurethane ureteral stents: a prospective controlled study

Gadzhiev, Nariman; Gorelov, Dmitry; Malkhasyan, V.A.; Akopyan, G.N.; Harchelava, Revaz; Мазуренко, Д. В.; Kosmala, Christina; Okhunov, Zhamshid; Петров, С. Б.

doi:10.1186/s12894-020-0577-y

Cited by 30 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, while there have been many studies evaluating the effects of ureteric stent diameter and stent length on patient experiences and stent-related symptoms, there have not been many head-to-head studies comparing these outcomes to ureteric stents constructed from different materials. Yet, in a prospective study with 50 patients conducted by Gadzhiev et al [ 12 ], the authors compared the tolerability of silicone stents to polyurethane stents. Notably, they found that compared to the polyurethane stents, silicone ureteric stents were associated with a much lower reported pain score and pain intensity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indwelling ureteric stents: Patterns of use and nomenclature

Leong

Steward

Healy

et al. 2020

Arab Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives : To evaluate ureteric stenting practice patterns amongst a range of academic and community urologists, and to examine the nomenclature used to identify an indwelling ureteric stent from both our questionnaire and from a review of the literature. Subjects and methods : A 16-question, peer-reviewed online survey was distributed to members of the Mid-Atlantic American Urological Association. Responses were collected over a 1-month period. Questions included demographics, ureteric stenting practice patterns, and utilization of stenting nomenclature. Inappropriate use of nomenclature was defined as a mismatch between the visually depicted stents and the written description amongst urologists. Trends in ureteric stenting and nomenclature usage were tabulated and analyzed. Results : Of 863 members, 105 (12.2%) responded to the survey. There was a wide variety of practice settings, with the single-specialty group (44.2%) and academic/university (27.9%) being the two most common. Most providers used both cystoscopy and fluoroscopy to place stents (87.5%) as compared to fluoroscopy alone (12.5%). Most urologists (63.5%) removed stents with cystoscopy as compared to using a stent string (36.5%). While about half (51.0%) of the respondents left stents in situ for ≤3 months, many respondents (43.3%) felt comfortable with maximum dwell times of up to 6 months. The most commonly placed stent was the double pigtail stent (80.8%). However, most respondents inappropriately described this stent design as a Double J stent (72.1%). In the recent literature, 80% of articles clearly defined as using double pigtail stents, incorrectly identified their stent as a ‘Double J’. Conclusions : Variations in ureteric stenting practice patterns exist amongst community and academic urologists. Although most urologists utilize double pigtail ureteric stents, the majority inaccurately identified this stent design as a Double J. We propose use of the term ‘indwelling ureteric stent’ (IUS) unless describing any specific stent design.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indwelling ureteric stents: Patterns of use and nomenclature

Leong

Steward

Healy

et al. 2020

Arab Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They received either a polyurethane stent (Rusch, Teleflex), or a silicone stent (Cook Medical). They showed that, compared to polyurethane ureteral stents, silicone ureteral stents were associated with lower body pain intensity assessed by visual analogue scale for pain 2 weeks before stent removal, and at the time of stent removal [ 24 ].…”

Section: Evidence Regarding Tolerability Of Silicone Stentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Silicone vs. Polyurethane Stent: The Final Countdown

Mathias

Wiseman

2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ureteric stents are conventionally used in daily urological practice. There is ongoing debate on the superiority of different stent materials, particularly in terms of patient tolerance. We conducted a literature review to compare silicone stents and stents made of other materials from a patient tolerability perspective. We conclude that silicone stents are better tolerated but further research is required.

show abstract

“…A criticism of the study was that stents were left in patients for several weeks, where the benefit was most significant, as opposed to the typical dwell times of 5–10 days following stone treatment. Similarly, Gadzhiev et al performed a small randomized study which found that silicone stents (Black Filiform™, Cook Medical) were associated with lower visual analog scale pain scale scores at 2 weeks ( p = 0.023) and prior to stent removal at 4 weeks ( p = 0.001) compared to polyurethane stents (Rüsch, Teleflex) ( Table 2 ) ( 4 ).…”

Section: Modern Silicone Stentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite these advantages, silicone stents were previously deemed impractical due to both the high frictional coefficients making placement difficult and lower tensile strength ( 2 ). More recently, advances in technology have allowed for modern silicone stents to be developed with stronger tensile strengths, but still with softer compositions, potentially allowing for less stent-related discomfort ( 4 ). Coating of the silicone stents with hydrophilic material has allowed for easier stent placement ( 5 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Developments in Ureteral Stent Technology

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ureteral stents have been utilized for decades in maintaining ureteral patency, most commonly after ureteroscopy in the treatment of urolithiasis. Since their initial development, ureteral stents have had many technological advances that have allowed for better patient outcomes with improvements in comfort, durability, patency, encrustation resistance, biocompatibility, ease of insertion, migration, and biofilm development. Several new ureteral stents enter the market every year, each with their own touted benefits. It is essential to understand the different advantages for each ureteral stent to provide the best available care to patients when possible. The purpose of this review is to give a brief history of ureteral stent development and summarize the recent developments in ureteral stent designs. We aim to review the data supporting the clinical advantages of the latest ureteral stents available for use by urologists.

show abstract

Comparison of silicone versus polyurethane ureteral stents: a prospective controlled study

Cited by 30 publications

References 31 publications

Indwelling ureteric stents: Patterns of use and nomenclature

Indwelling ureteric stents: Patterns of use and nomenclature

Silicone vs. Polyurethane Stent: The Final Countdown

Developments in Ureteral Stent Technology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About