Feasibility and Outcomes of Temporary Bulbar Urethral Stent Placement After Internal Urethrotomy in the Largest Multicenter Series.

BACKGROUND: Recent years have seen the development of a new generation of temporary urethral stents as an adjuvant option after direct vision internal urethrotomy (DVIU). Despite some early promising results, large series addressing their safety and outcomes are still lacking. OBJECTIVE: To report complications and outcomes from the largest series of patients receiving a temporary bulbar urethral stent to date. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a retrospective analysis of bulbar urethral stenting procedures after DVIU in seven centers. Patients either refused urethroplasty or were not fit for surgery. The stents were removed after at least 6 mo in place unless complications requiring earlier removal occurred. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: DVIU with a cold knife or laser is performed, followed by stent placement. At the end of the treatment period, the stent is removed under cystoscopy with gripping forceps. MEASUREMENTS: All patients underwent postoperative follow-up (FU) for assessment of complications while the stent was in place. After removal, the FU schedule consisted of office evaluation at 6 mo and 12 mo, and then annually. Failure was defined as any treatment for urethral stricture after stent removal. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 49% of the patients experienced complications. The most frequent were discomfort (23.8%), stress incontinence (17.5%), and stent dislocation (9.8%). Some 85% of the adverse events observed were Clavien-Dindo grade <3. The overall success rate at median FU of 38.2 mo was 76.9%. The success rate was significantly lower if the stent was removed before 6 mo (53.3% vs 79.7%; p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Temporary urethral stents may be a safe choice with satisfactory results in patients not undergoing urethroplasty. A stent indwelling time shorter than 6 mo provides worse outcomes that are comparable to those with DVIU alone. PATIENT SUMMARY: We assessed complications and outcomes after placement of a temporary narrow tube in the urethra after surgery to widen a narrowing of the urethra. The treatment is safe and easily reproducible with satisfactory results. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Dusting versus fragmentation for renal stones during flexible ureteroscopy.

Objectives: To compare stone dusting and spontaneous passage vs fragmentation and active fragment retrieval during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) for renal calculi. Patients and methods: The study included patients who underwent fURS and holmium laser lithotripsy for renal calculi from January 2015 to March 2017. Dusting was done using low energy and high frequency (0.3-0.5 J and 15-20 Hz, respectively), and fragmentation was done with higher energy and lower frequency (1-1.2 J and 6-10 Hz, respectively) and then stone fragments were extracted using a basket. The stone-free rate (SFR) was evaluated after 2 months with non-contrast computed tomography. Operative time, complication rate, SFR, and the need for secondary procedures were compared. Results: The study included 107 consecutive patients, with a mean (SD) age of 49 (13) years. Dusting was performed in 51 patients and fragmentation in 56. The patients' demographics, laboratory tests, preoperative stents, stone and renal characteristics were comparable for both groups. Operative time was significantly shorter for dusting than fragmentation (76 vs 91 min, P = 0.009). Complication rates were comparable between the groups (7.8% for dusting and 8.9% for fragmentation, P = 0.840). The mean hospital stay was comparable for both groups (P = 0.686). The SFR was significantly better in fragmentation group (78.6%) compared with the dusting group (58.6%, P = 0.035). The need for a secondary procedure was 33.3% in the dusting group and 23.3% in fragmentation group (P = 0.244). Conclusions: During fURS for renal stones, the dusting technique had a significantly shorter operation time, whilst the fragmentation technique led to a significantly better SFR. Both techniques have comparable safety, hospital stay, and requirement for secondary procedures. Abbreviations: fURS: flexible ureteroscopy/ureteroscope; ICU: intensive care unit; KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidney, ureter and bladder; NCCT: non-contrast CT; SFR: stone-free rate; SWL: shockwave lithotripsy; UAS: ureteric access sheath.