Jonathan Modai1, Yaniv Shilo1, Dan Leibovici1, Ishai Dror2, Vyacheslav Kalchenko3, Brian Berkowitz4. 1. Department of Urology, Kaplan Medical Center, Affiliated With the Hebrew University, 7661041, Rehovot, Israel. 2. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science, 7610001, Rehovot, Israel. 3. Department of Veterinary Resources, Weizmann Institute of Science, 7610001, Rehovot, Israel. 4. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science, 7610001, Rehovot, Israel. brian.berkowitz@weizmann.ac.il.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the ability of ureteral stents with different diameters to drain pus that accumulates in an obstructed kidney using an in vitro model. METHODS: We developed an in vitro model of an obstructed kidney filled with pus. The model included a silicon kidney unit based on computed tomography (CT) data, a 3D printed ureteral stone based on a real extracted ureteral stone, a latex ureter model, a bladder vessel, and a fluid with qualities resembling pus. Identical printed stones were inserted into four ureter models containing stents with varying diameters (4.8F, 6F, 7F, 8F), each of which was connected to the kidney unit and the bladder vessel. The kidney unit was filled with artificial pus to pressures of 30 cmH2O to simulate an infected and obstructed kidney. The obstruction was relieved with stents in place, while artificial urine was pumped into the kidney; pressure in the kidney and remaining pus were measured continuously. RESULTS: The rate of pressure drop and the final pressure measured in the kidney were unaffected by the diameter of the stent. For all stent diameters, the pressure reached non-obstructed levels within 30 s, final pressure was reached within 90-120 s, and minimal amounts of pus remained in the kidney after 120 min. CONCLUSIONS: In vitro experiments demonstrate that all stent diameters drain pus-filled, obstructed kidneys with the same efficacy. The common perception that larger diameter tubes are more effective under such circumstances should be re-examined.
PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the ability of ureteral stents with different diameters to drain pus that accumulates in an obstructed kidney using an in vitro model. METHODS: We developed an in vitro model of an obstructed kidney filled with pus. The model included a silicon kidney unit based on computed tomography (CT) data, a 3D printed ureteral stone based on a real extracted ureteral stone, a latex ureter model, a bladder vessel, and a fluid with qualities resembling pus. Identical printed stones were inserted into four ureter models containing stents with varying diameters (4.8F, 6F, 7F, 8F), each of which was connected to the kidney unit and the bladder vessel. The kidney unit was filled with artificial pus to pressures of 30 cmH2O to simulate an infected and obstructed kidney. The obstruction was relieved with stents in place, while artificial urine was pumped into the kidney; pressure in the kidney and remaining pus were measured continuously. RESULTS: The rate of pressure drop and the final pressure measured in the kidney were unaffected by the diameter of the stent. For all stent diameters, the pressure reached non-obstructed levels within 30 s, final pressure was reached within 90-120 s, and minimal amounts of pus remained in the kidney after 120 min. CONCLUSIONS: In vitro experiments demonstrate that all stent diameters drain pus-filled, obstructed kidneys with the same efficacy. The common perception that larger diameter tubes are more effective under such circumstances should be re-examined.
Authors: Zachariah G Goldsmith; Olugbemisola Oredein-McCoy; Leah Gerber; Lionel L Bañez; David R Sopko; Michael J Miller; Glenn M Preminger; Michael E Lipkin Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Michael S Borofsky; Dawn Walter; Ojas Shah; David S Goldfarb; Adam C Mues; Danil V Makarov Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sara Ramsey; Alan Robertson; Mark J Ablett; Robert N Meddings; Graham W Hollins; Brian Little Journal: J Endourol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: M S Pearle; H L Pierce; G L Miller; J A Summa; J M Mutz; B A Petty; C G Roehrborn; J V Kryger; S Y Nakada Journal: J Urol Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 7.450