Search

Context: Ureteral stents are essential implants that are used on a daily basis. Since their invention, advances in stent design have been directed towards alleviating stent-related symptoms. It remains unclear how the material composition of the stent affects stent-related symptoms. Objective: To review the literature and define the clinical impact of ureteral stent material on stent-related symptoms. Evidence acquisition: A literature search of the Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Web of Science databases was conducted on December 17, 2021 to collect articles comparing stent composition materials regarding stent-related symptoms. Thirteen publications met the inclusion criteria, of which only one met the high-quality requirements of the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials. Evidence synthesis: Most trials, including the highest quality trial, seem to support that silicone double-J (DJ) stents reduce stent-related symptoms compared to nonsilicone DJ stents. Regarding physical properties, it seems that “soft” or “flexible” DJ stents reduce stent-related symptoms. However, since there was only one high-quality study with a low risk of bias, it is impossible to draw a definitive conclusion owing to the lack of quality data. Conclusions: Silicone DJ stents, and by extension “soft” DJ stents, appear to reduce stent-related symptoms compared to nonsilicone polymers and “hard” DJ stents. No definitive conclusion can be drawn owing to a lack of quality evidence. Creating a standard for measuring and reporting physical stent properties should be the first step for further research. Patient summary: A ureteral stent is a small hollow tube placed inside the ureter to help urine drain from the kidney. We reviewed the literature on the impact of stent material on stent-related symptoms. We found that silicone may reduce stent-related symptoms, but no definitive conclusion can be drawn and further studies are needed.

Context: The refined mechanics of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS) are vulnerable to damage. Sending the fURS for repair is costly and has driven interest toward estimating the resources used for fURS repairs. Objective: To systematically review available literature and to estimate the total weighted repair rate of an fURS and the average repair cost per ureteroscopy. Evidence acquisition: A systematic review was conducted by searching the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The average costs of all repairs identified in the included studies were extracted. A random-effect model was used to calculate the pooled total fURS repair rate. The total weighted repair rate and average cost per repair were multiplied to provide an average cost of repair per ureteroscopy procedure. Evidence synthesis: We identified 18 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, which included 411 repairs from 5900 investigated ureteroscopy procedures. The calculated weighted repair rate was 6.5% ± 0.745% (95% confidence interval: 5.0–7.9%; I2 = 75.3%), equivalent to 15 ureteroscopy procedures before repair. The average cost per repair was 6808 USD; according to the weighted repair rate of 6.5%, this corresponds to an average repair cost of 441 USD per procedure. Egger’s regression test did not reveal a significant publication bias (p = 0.07). Conclusions: This is the first meta-analysis to estimate the repair rate of the fURS used for ureteroscopy. Our analysis demonstrates a repair rate of 6.5%, equivalent to 15 ureteroscopy procedures between fURS repairs and a repair cost of 441 USD per procedure. Ureteroscopy practices should consider fURS breakage rates and repair costs to optimize the use of reusable versus disposable devices. Patient summary: We reviewed available literature investigating the repair rate of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS). We found that fURSs are sent for repair after every 15 ureteroscopy procedures, corresponding to 441 USD per procedure in repair cost.