Metallic ureteral stents versus endoureterotomy as a therapeutic approach for experimental ureteral stricture.
OBJECTIVE
To determine if the deployment of metallic ureteral stents in benign ureteral stricture is more effective than endoureterotomy.


METHODS
Twenty pigs were randomly divided in two groups to be treated with endoureterotomy or metallic stents. The internal ureteral diameter 2 cm distal to the ureteropelvic junction, histopathologic changes, ultrasonographic and fluoroscopic studies, urine culture, and serum urea and creatinine levels were analyzed during the phases of the study. The study was divided into three phases. The first included premodel documentation of normal urinary tract and laparoscopic ureteral stricture induction. In the second phase 1 month later, diagnosis and endoureteral treatment were carried out. Twelve weeks after stricture treatment, follow-up imaging studies and postmortem evaluation of all animals were performed.


RESULTS
The success rates were 80% for endoureterotomy and 70% for metallic stent implantation. In all animals in the latter group, a ureteral hyperplasic reaction took place that affected the zone of stent implantation. One difference between the groups was the presence of urinary infection in 30% of animals in the endoureterotomy group and in no animals treated with metallic stents. Statistically significant differences in ureteral diameter between the first and second study phases were found within both groups (P < .0001), but not between groups (P = .021). Results from pathologic analysis revealed statistically significant differences between groups (P = .0029).


CONCLUSIONS
The interaction among the distal end of the metallic stent, the urothelium, and peristalsis might be the origin of the failure of these devices. Although the deployment of metallic stents is attractive compared with other endourologic techniques like endoureterotomy in cases of benign strictures, certain problems must be resolved to prevent hyperplasia. Until then, this technique will not be a fully reliable therapeutic option for ureteral disorders.
Soria
Federico
F
Endoscopy Department, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain. fsoria@ccmi.es
Sun
Fei
F
Durán
Esther
E
Sánchez
Francisco M
FM
Usón
Jesús
J
D000818:Animals; D001437:Bacteriuria / Q000382:microbiology; D002404:Catheterization / Q000009:adverse effects; D003251:Constriction, Pathologic / Q000473:pathology / Q000628:therapy; D003404:Creatinine / Q000097:blood; D004195:Disease Models, Animal; D005260:Female; D005355:Fibrosis; D006965:Hyperplasia; D011897:Random Allocation; D012704:Serous Membrane / Q000473:pathology; D015607:Stents / Q000009:adverse effects; D013552:Swine; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014508:Urea / Q000097:blood; D014513:Ureter / Q000473:pathology*; D014515:Ureteral Diseases / Q000473:pathology / Q000628:therapy*; D014552:Urinary Tract Infections / Q000209:etiology; D019459:Urothelium / Q000473:pathology
D014508:Urea; D003404:Creatinine