Objectives: The aim of this experimental study was to assess the possibility of decreasing the size of the ureteral stents used after an endopyelotomy. To this end, an experimental study was performed which compared a ureteral double-J wire stent versus a standard 7F ureteral stent after endopyelotomy. Methods: Twenty healthy female pigs were randomly divided into 2 groups: group I (double pigtail ureteral stent 7F) and group II (lumenless ureteral double-J wire stent, Zebrastent™, 0.035 inches in diameter). Percutaneous, endoluminal ultrasonographic and fluoroscopic studies were analyzed during the 3 different phases of the study. The first phase included premodel documentation of normal urinary tracts and laparoscopic ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction induction. During the second phase, 6 weeks later, diagnosis and endopyelotomy were carried out. Sixteen weeks after the obstruction treatment, follow-up imaging studies and postmortem evaluations of all animals were performed. Results: After the sonographic and fluoroscopic assessments, we determined the success rate for each group: 80% for group I and 90% for group II. No significant statistical differences were evident in the evolution of the diameter of the UPJ between groups. Better healing of the UPJ and a lower level of retroperitoneal repercussions were seen in group II. Conclusions: The ureteral double-J wire stent (Zebrastent) has been shown to be highly effective after endopyelotomy. This means that it is possible to reduce the size of ureteral stents after endopyelotomy with the advantages that this entails. Double-J ureteral stents probably act as a scaffold rather than a mold.

Keywords:
Endopyelotomy, Endourology, Double-J wire stent
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.