F-C von Rundstedt1, D Lazica, A S Brandt, M Rathert, S Roth. 1. Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Helios-Klinikum Wuppertal, Universität Witten-Herdecke, Heusner Strasse 40, 42283, Wuppertal, Deutschland. fvonrundstedt@googlemail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Duplex or twin ureteral stenting has previously been described as a viable option for patients where single double-J ureteral stenting has failed in order to avoid nephrostomies or further surgical intervention. We assessed a series of 20 patients at our institution after unsuccessful primary single ureteral stenting where parallel ureteral stents were inserted. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2009, 20 patients underwent double-J ureteral stenting for ureteral compression or ureteral strictures. After failure of single stenting two ureteral stents were consecutively inserted into the ureter in a parallel fashion after dilating the ureter up to 14 F. The second stent was passed over a hydrophilic guidewire while holding the first stent secure to prevent dislocation. RESULTS: In all patients the insertion of two parallel stents was technically possible. In 8 of 12 patients with extrinsic tumor compression the stents provided sufficient drainage (67%). When the stricture was due to surgery or radiation two of three patients were successfully diverted with twin stents. In five patients with a ureteral stricture due to malignant disease the stenting did not provide sufficient drainage and a nephrostomy had to be placed after a mean duration of 19 days. Two of those patients were later managed with a pyelovesical bypass. Three patients were later managed with a ureterocystoneostomy (psoas hitch). In four of five patients with benign disease a long-term management was feasible. The patient with retroperitoneal fibrosis developed immediate hydronephrosis and severe flank pain and ultimately underwent an ileal ureter replacement. In three patients with a benign ureteral stenosis after stone therapy, hysterectomy, or colon ureter replacement, a temporary duplex stenting sufficiently resolved the hydronephrosis for spontaneous urine passage. In one patient the duplex stenting prevented a kidney stone from dislocating into the ureter during lithotripsy. CONCLUSIONS: Duplex or twin (double) ureteral stenting is a valid option in selected patients to avoid the placement of a nephrostomy. Severe stenosis may however demand a nephrostomy insertion or more invasive procedures in the later course. For certain benign ureteral strictures a therapeutic dilating effect of the two ureteral stents that makes further intervention unnecessary can be discussed.
BACKGROUND: Duplex or twin ureteral stenting has previously been described as a viable option for patients where single double-J ureteral stenting has failed in order to avoid nephrostomies or further surgical intervention. We assessed a series of 20 patients at our institution after unsuccessful primary single ureteral stenting where parallel ureteral stents were inserted. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2009, 20 patients underwent double-J ureteral stenting for ureteral compression or ureteral strictures. After failure of single stenting two ureteral stents were consecutively inserted into the ureter in a parallel fashion after dilating the ureter up to 14 F. The second stent was passed over a hydrophilic guidewire while holding the first stent secure to prevent dislocation. RESULTS: In all patients the insertion of two parallel stents was technically possible. In 8 of 12 patients with extrinsic tumor compression the stents provided sufficient drainage (67%). When the stricture was due to surgery or radiation two of three patients were successfully diverted with twin stents. In five patients with a ureteral stricture due to malignant disease the stenting did not provide sufficient drainage and a nephrostomy had to be placed after a mean duration of 19 days. Two of those patients were later managed with a pyelovesical bypass. Three patients were later managed with a ureterocystoneostomy (psoas hitch). In four of five patients with benign disease a long-term management was feasible. The patient with retroperitoneal fibrosis developed immediate hydronephrosis and severe flank pain and ultimately underwent an ileal ureter replacement. In three patients with a benign ureteral stenosis after stone therapy, hysterectomy, or colon ureter replacement, a temporary duplex stenting sufficiently resolved the hydronephrosis for spontaneous urine passage. In one patient the duplex stenting prevented a kidney stone from dislocating into the ureter during lithotripsy. CONCLUSIONS: Duplex or twin (double) ureteral stenting is a valid option in selected patients to avoid the placement of a nephrostomy. Severe stenosis may however demand a nephrostomy insertion or more invasive procedures in the later course. For certain benign ureteral strictures a therapeutic dilating effect of the two ureteral stents that makes further intervention unnecessary can be discussed.