A Prospective Randomized Comparison of a Covered Metallic Ureteral Stent and a Double-J Stent for Malignant Ureteral Obstruction.
10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.606
- Author:
Jong Woo KIM
1
;
Bumsik HONG
;
Ji Hoon SHIN
;
Jihong PARK
;
Jin Hyoun KIM
;
Dong Il GWON
;
Min Hee RYU
;
Baek Yeol RYOO
Author Information
1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Korea. jhshin@amc.seoul.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Ureter obstruction;
Ureter stent;
Metallic ureter stent;
Double-J ureter stent;
Covered ureter stent;
Random;
Study;
Trial
- MeSH:
Female;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Male;
Prospective Studies*;
Stents*;
Survival Rate;
Ureter*;
Ureteral Obstruction*
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology
2018;19(4):606-612
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy between a covered metallic ureteral stent (CMS) and a double-J ureteral stent (DJS) for the treatment of a malignant ureteral obstruction (MUO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients (seven men and 12 women; mean age, 53.4 years) were randomly assigned to the CMS (n = 10) or DJS (n = 9) group. The following were compared between the two groups: technical success, i.e., successful stent placement into desired locations; stent malfunction; stent patency, i.e., no obstruction and no additional intervention; complications; and patient survival. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 100% in all 10 and 12 ureteral units in the CMS and DJS groups, respectively. During the mean follow-up period of 253.9 days (range, 63–655 days), stent malfunction was observed in 40.0% (4/10) and 66.7% (8/12) in the CMS and DJS groups, respectively. In the per-ureteral analysis, the median patency time was 239.0 days and 80.0 days in the CMS and DJS groups, respectively. The CMS group yielded higher patency rates compared with the DJS group at three months (90% vs. 35%) and at six months (57% vs. 21%). The overall patency rates were significantly higher in the CMS group (p = 0.041). Complications included the migration of two metallic stents in one patient in the CMS group, which were removed in a retrograde manner. The two patient groups did not differ significantly regarding their overall survival rates (p = 0.286). CONCLUSION: Covered metallic ureteral stent may be effective for MUO.
