Abstract
Objectives
We aimed to investigate the safety concerns associated with placing double-J ureteric stents post-laparoscopic pyeloplasty surgery for congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) and hydronephrosis.
Methods
A total of 1349 patients with postoperative double-J stent placement at our center were included. Clinical variables for enrolled patients were collected by two independent authors. We compared clinical variables and the efficacy of stenting post-laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
Results
The mean age of the patients was 4.23 ± 2.39 years. A total of 58.49% of patients were diagnosed with left UPJO with hydronephrosis and 33.95% were diagnosed with right UPJO. Furthermore, 7.56% of patients had bilateral UPJO. In all cases, 96.96% of indwelling double-J stents were successfully removed 4 weeks post-surgery. A total of 3.04% of the patients still required further management, including stent migration to the renal pelvis (0.37%), stent migration to the bladder (0.30%), prolapse of the stent through the ureter (0.15%), blockage of stents (1.85%), and fouling of stents (0.37%).
Conclusions
Double-J ureteric stents used after laparoscopic pyeloplasty for treating UPJO in hydronephrosis for pediatric patients is a safe, feasible, and beneficial method, which can be recommended for routine procedures. However, caution should be practiced for follow-up and removal using this method.
Keywords: Double-J ureteric stent, ureteropelvic junction obstruction, hydronephrosis, laparoscopic pyeloplasty, pediatric patient, urinary tract infection
Introduction
Hydronephrosis, which is defined as distension and dilation of the kidneys, is generally caused by obstruction to free flow of urine from the kidneys, such as ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).1 Congenital UPJO serves as a prime indicator during the pathogenesis of hydronephrosis, which is an ailment that is twice as common in boys than in girls.2 Moreover, hydronephrosis caused by UPJO can lead to progressive renal impairment and further renal failure if left untreated.3
Open pyeloplasty (OP) is considered the gold standard treatment for UPJO with a > 90% success rate.4 Since the first report of successful laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) in 1993, this procedure has proven to be efficient and safe for OP.5 However, the use of ureteral stenting during LP has resulted in controversy.6 Additionally, use of ureteral stenting is associated with the incidence of urinary tract infection (UTI) and fibrosis.7 In contrast, some studies have shown that ureteral stenting can cause less urinary leakage, thus preventing the likelihood of urinary infections.8,9
We conducted a retrospective study to investigate the safety regarding the placement of double-J ureteric stents, which is the most common type of ureteral stenting in pediatric urology, post-LP surgery for treating congenital UPJO in hydronephrosis at our center.
Methods
Ethics statement and consent to participate
The local ethics committee of the Children’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University approved the protocols followed in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from pediatric patients and their legal guardians. All procedures that were performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Patients
This study included patients who had undergone LP surgery for congenital UPJO and hydronephrosis, as well as postoperative double-J stent placement, during January 2008 to December 2017 at our center (Department of Urology, Children’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University). All patients enrolled in this study were confirmed to be suffering from primary hydronephrosis via an ultrasound and/or nuclear scan. Moreover, clinical variables of the enrolled patients, such as age, sex, weight, operating side of UPJO and hydronephrosis, hospital stay, duration of surgery, and complications in double-J stent placement, were collected and independently reviewed by two authors (Haobo Zhu and Jun Wang). The inclusion criteria for the patients were as follows: (1) patients diagnosed with congenital unilateral or bilateral UPJO with severe hydronephrosis (Grades II, III, and IV) as confirmed by ultrasound and/or nuclear scan; (2) patients aged between 0 and 17 years; (3) patients who had undergone LP procedures and insertion of double-J stents post-surgery; and (4) patients who volunteered to be included in this study.
Surgical procedures
All LPs were trans-peritoneal incisions on the kidneys in the lateral position. In this process, four trocars were inserted for dissection, retraction, and identification of UPJO. Depending on the anatomical findings at the time of dissection, either a dismembered or non-dismembered procedure was performed. Reduction pyeloplasty was conducted in case of a redundant pelvis. Once the operation on the posterior layer was completed, double-J stents (SDTE®; KANG SHUN “IN” Medical Instrument Co., Ltd., Jinan, China) were placed anterogradely, mainly above the renal pelvis and ureteric anastomosis. After penetrating the abdominal wall by a venipuncture needle core removal device (Ethicon, Blue Ash, OH, USA), a double-J stent zebra guide wire (Boston Scientific, El Coyol, Costa Rica) was inserted into the ureter by venipuncture. Once the back end of the visible urinary bladder stream was observed, the guide wire was removed while the proximal end of the double-J stent was looped in the pelvis. Additionally, a drainage bag was placed for repair adjacent to a Foley catheter (CLINY®; CREATE MEDIC International Trade Co., Ltd., Dalian, China) that remained in the bladder for 2 or 3 days. On the next day, the drainage bag was extracted if drainage output did not increase. Additionally, the indwelling double-J stent was removed after 4 weeks in case no complications were observed. For patients with failure of LP surgery, Hynes–Anderson pyeloplasty or pyelostomy was performed, depending on the status of patients and the degree of hydronephrosis.
Follow-up
Most of the patients were discharged from the hospital within 2 to 3 days post-surgery and prescribed oral antibiotics. In all patients with indwelling double-J stents, renal ultrasound was performed before discharge to visualize double-J stents and to evaluate the degree of hydronephrosis. For regular cases of double-J stents, the stents were removed after 4 weeks through cystoscopy in the outpatient clinic.
Primary and secondary outcomes
The primary outcome of this retrospective study was the success rate of removal of the double-J stent in pediatric patients with UPJO. Moreover, patients who required further management were recorded and the management for each patient was considered as a secondary outcome. Additionally, secondary outcomes were mainly associated with complaints and resultant symptoms during indwelling of double-J stents, such as UTIs, gross hematuria, and lumbar pain.
Statistical analysis
Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation, whereas categorical data are shown as absolute rates and percentages. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 19.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
Results
A total of 1349 pediatric patients (843 boys and 506 girls) were investigated in this study. The baseline demographics of the participants are shown in Table 1. The mean age of the patients was 4.23 ± 2.39 years. The youngest patient was 6 months and the oldest was 12 years old. Moreover, 58.49% of the patients were diagnosed with left UPJO in hydronephrosis and 7.56% suffered from bilateral UPJO. No blood transfer was required. The median hospital stay of the patients was 3 days and the median duration between surgery and removal of the double-J stent was 29 days.
Table 1.
Baseline demographic data of the enrolled patients.
| Variables | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of patients | 1349 |
| Age (years), median (IQR) | 4 (2, 10) |
| Sex (%) | |
| Boys | 843 (62.49) |
| Girls | 506 (37.51) |
| Side (%) | |
| Left | 789 (58.49) |
| Right | 458 (33.95) |
| Bilateral | 102 (7.56) |
| Grade of hydronephrosis | |
| I | 0 (0) |
| II | 42 (3.11) |
| III | 816 (60.49) |
| IV | 491 (36.40) |
| Duration of stent insertion (minutes), median (IQR) | 26 (22, 35) |
| Hospital stay (days), median (IQR) | 3 (2, 4) |
| Placement of double-J stent (days), median (IQR) | 29 (26, 41) |
Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range.
Among all cases, 96.96% of indwelling double-J stents were successfully removed post-surgery. Among these successful cases, the removal time ranged from 24 to 33 days. However, 3.04% of patients required further management, including stent migration to the renal pelvis (0.37%), stent migration to the bladder (0.30%), prolapse of the stent through the ureter (0.15%), blockage of stents (1.85%), and fouling of stents (0.37%). With regard to these stent-related complications, we did not observe any severe symptoms associated with stent-related complications. Only mild symptoms, including mild lumbago and hematuria, were observed. Further information about the time of stent removal and concurrent management is shown in Table 2. With regard to complaints and resultant symptoms, UTIs were confirmed by urine culture and approximately 10% of patients suffered from lumbar pain. Additionally, cases of gross hematuria were recorded (Table 2). The median time of UTI diagnosis was 22 days post-surgery, and the time of diagnosis ranged from 15 to 27 days.
Table 2.
Outcomes of indwelling double-J stents after laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
| Outcome | Number of patients, n (%) | Time (days), median (IQR) | Management |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome | Time of removal | ||
| Removal of the stent | 1308 (96.96) | 28 (26, 31) | No treatment |
| Stent migration | |||
| To the renal pelvis | 5 (0.37) | 21 (19, 21) | Removal of the stent or readjustment of the position of the stent by ureteroscope |
| To the bladder | 4 (0.30) | 22.5 (20, 23) | Readjustment of the position of the stent by ureteroscope |
| Prolapse of the stent through the ureter | 2 (0.15) | 16.50* | No treatment; follow-up in the outpatient clinic |
| Blockage of the stent | 25 (1.85) | 15 (13, 19) | Replacement of the stent |
| Fouling of the stent | 5 (0.37) | 21 (18.5, 23.25) | Advance removal of the stents and treatment of fouling in the ureter |
| Symptoms | Duration | ||
| UTI | 238 (17.64) | 22 (18, 26) | Urine culture and antibiotic administration according to a drug sensitivity test |
| Gross hematuria | 20 (1.48) | 5 (2, 8) | Advance removal of the stent and hemostatic therapy |
| Lumbar pain | 168 (12.45) | 5 (1, 9) | Advance removal of the stent and analgesic treatment |
Abbreviations: UTI, urinary tract infection; IQR, interquartile range.
*Because of the limited number of cases, we failed to calculate the IQR.
Discussion
The present study is based on a single-center evaluation of LP for pediatric patients who suffered from UPJO. In this study, we found that all double-J stents were successfully inserted into the ureter during the surgical procedures of LP and 96.96% of the stents were successfully removed. Additionally, no severe complications were observed, and UTI was considered as the most common complication during stenting. Our study indicates that double-J stents in LP surgery for pediatric patients suffering from UPJO are feasible and safe.
OP is the gold standard in surgical treatment of UPJO. However, minimally invasive therapies have become increasingly common as alternative procedures to OP in pediatrics. In canonical procedures in OP or LP surgery for pediatric patients suffering from UPJO, placement of a double-J stent is not routinely required. In our center, attenuating the short-term and long-term complications is highly recommended. Moreover, the double-J stent is widely applied for treating UPJO. Osman et al.10 reported a suitable effect of double-J stents for treating adult patients with UPJO, which could significantly relieve loin pain. Importantly, application of externalized double-J stents in infants with UPJO was studied and no severe complications were observed, along with a relatively shortened operative time.11 Because placement of double-J stents is still controversial in UPJO treatment, one clinical study focused on adult patients and compared stented and stentless techniques after LP surgery.12 Stentless LP is more feasible than LP with stents, but it requires more experienced surgeons and it has more complications. Therefore, stentless LP is not recommended for wide application. Insertion of stents is still recommended for new platforms or complicated techniques, such as pediatric LP surgery.13–16 A recent network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of double-J stent placement with stent-less procedures for pediatric pyeloplasty.17 After systematically analyzing the pooled results in operative time, operative success, hospital stay, and overall complications, the authors of this meta-analysis suggested that there was no significant difference in operative-related variables between the two methods. Notably, the double-J stent was suggested to be more beneficial for pediatric pyeloplasty, which is consistent with the main outcomes in our study.
Potential unfavorable conditions have been reported during follow-up of double-J stent placement in pediatric patients, such as an increased risk of renal damage, bleeding, UTI, and reduced quality of life.18–20 In our study, we found a rate of 17.64% for UTI episodes and 12.45% for lumbar pain, which are the two most common complications of double-J stent placement. Nevertheless, we failed to compare the incidence rate in stent-free patients because of the study design. However, several studies have reported positive results that are consistent with our results.21–25 Recently, Nagdeve et al.26 concluded that double-J-stented patients were more symptomatic than unstented patients in the postoperative period, but no significant difference was identified. Considering the relatively low expense and advantages in follow-up for double-J stents, we still suggest double-J stent placement during LP in pediatric patients with UPJO as a safe, feasible, and beneficial method.
Moreover, we routinely provided pediatric patients with double-J stent antibiotics to prevent UTI episodes. Additionally, for children with a high risk of UTIs, such as diabetes, congenital abnormalities, and pre-existing infections, we prolonged the treatment period of antibiotics from 3 days to 5 to 7 days, depending on the patient’s condition. Stentless procedures are associated with less urine leakage and less flank pain than stented procedures.27–29 Therefore, we prefer the double-J stent to an external stent because the double-J stent is believed to lower the risk of urine leakage. For flank pain, patients were encouraged to drink more water to relieve the flank pain, combined with the low-dosage analgesics only under conditions of unbearable lumbar pain.
Our study has several limitations as follows. (1) Our study design lacked a control group (stentless pediatric patients). Therefore, we could not compare the efficacy and safety of double-J stents with other procedures. (2) The number of patients in our study was relatively limited and a large-scale study is required in the future. (3) Our study was mainly designed to investigate the safety of double-J stent placement in LP procedures for pediatric UPJO, and there was a lack of investigation of efficacy of stenting.
Our experience on double-J stenting in LP procedures for pediatric patients with UPJO showed a high success rate of the operation and shortened hospital stay. However, this conclusion still needs to be confirmed prospectively because of the limitations mentioned above. Furthermore, our center has carried out a large-scale, prospective, case–control clinical trial to confirm our findings. Additionally, we still strongly recommend double-J stenting in LP procedures for pediatric patients with UPJO who suffer from recurring UTI before surgery, a significantly prolonged operation, or complicated surgical methods.
Conclusion
Double-J stenting in LP procedures for pediatric patients with UPJO represents a high operative success rate and short hospital stay. During follow-up, UTI and lumbar pain are the two most common complications for patients with double-J stents. In conclusion, double-J stent placement during LP in pediatric patients with UJO is a safe, feasible, and beneficial method. However, our results should be extensively validated by a well-designed, large-scale, case–control study.
Declaration of conflicting interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant numbers 81830020, 81530023).
ORCID iD
Yunfei Guo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2023-7243
References
- 1.Jindal L, Gupta AK, Mumtaz F, et al. Laparoscopic nephroplication and nephropexy as an adjunct to pyeloplasty in UPJO with giant hydronephrosis. Int Urol Nephrol 2006; 38: 443–446. doi:10.1007/s11255-005-4975-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kandur Y, Salan A, Guler AG, et al. Diuretic renography in hydronephrosis: a retrospective single-center study. Int Urol Nephrol 2018; 50: 1199–1204. doi:10.1007/s11255-018-1893-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Carlstrom M. Hydronephrosis and risk of later development of hypertension. Acta Paediatr 2019; 108: 50–57. doi:10.1111/apa.14482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Carpenter CP, Tolley E, Tourville E, et al. Hydronephrosis after pyeloplasty: “will it go away?”. Urology 2018; 121: 158–163. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Simforoosh N, Abedi A, Hosseini Sharifi SH, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes and cosmetic results between standard and mini laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children younger than 1 year of age. J Pediatr Urol 2014; 10: 819–823. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2014. 01.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bleve C, Bucci V, Conighi ML, et al. Horseshoe kidney and uretero-pelvic-junction obstruction in a pediatric patient. Laparoscopic vascular hitch: a valid alternative to dismembered pyeloplasty? Pediatr Med Chir 2017; 39: 178. doi:10.4081/pmc.2017.178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Casale P, Lambert S. Prospective analysis of completely stentless robot-assisted pyeloplasty in children. J Robot Surg 2010; 3: 215–217. doi:10.1007/s11701-009-0164-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.McMullin N, Khor T, King P. Internal ureteric stenting following pyeloplasty reduces length of hospital stay in children. Br J Urol 1993; 72: 370–372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Sibley GN, Graham MD, Smith ML, et al. Improving splintage techniques in pyeloplasty. Br J Urol 1987; 60: 489–491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Osman T, Fawaz K, Abdelmaksoud A, et al. Insertion of double J stent as a therapeutic test in management of adults presenting with loin pain and equivocal ureteropelvic junction obstruction. World J Urol 2010; 28: 373–378. doi:10.1007/s00345-009-0464-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kajbafzadeh AM, Zeinoddini A, Ebadi M, et al. External extension of double-J ureteral stent during pyeloplasty: inexpensive stent and non-cystoscopic removal. Int Urol Nephrol 2014; 46: 671–676. doi:10.1007/s11255-013-0594-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Bilen CY, Bayazit Y, Güdeloğlu A, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in adults: stented versus stentless. J Endourol 2011; 25: 645–650. doi:10.1089/end.2010.0401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G, et al. Feasibility and preliminary clinical outcomes of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site (R-LESS) pyeloplasty using a new single-port platform. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 175–179. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Chacko JK, Piaggio LA, Neheman A, et al. Pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty: lessons learned from the first 52 cases. J Endourol 2009; 23: 1307–1311. doi:10.1089/end.2009. 0057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Lam PN, Wong C, Mulholland TL, et al. Pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty: 4-year experience. J Endourol 2007; 21: 1467–1471. doi:10.1089/end.2007.9876. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Yucel S, Samuelson ML, Nguyen MT, et al. Usefulness of short-term retrievable ureteral stent in pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 2007; 177: 720–725; discussion 725. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Liu X, Huang C, Guo Y, et al. Comparison of DJ stented, external stented and stent-less procedures for pediatric pyeloplasty: A network meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2019; 68: 126–133. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, et al. Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 2003; 169: 1065–1069; discussion 1069, doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000048980.33855.90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, Keeley FX, Jr, et al. Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of quality of life to aid outcome analysis. J Endourol 2001; 15: 151–154. doi:10.1089/089277901750134421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Pogorelic Z, Brković T, Budimir D, et al. Endoscopic placement of double-J ureteric stents in children as a treatment for primary hydronephrosis. Can J Urol 2017; 24: 8853–8858. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kim J, Park S, Hwang H, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes between dismembered pyeloplasty with or without ureteral stenting in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Korean J Urol 2012; 53: 564–568. doi:10.4111/kju.2012.53.8.564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bayne AP, Lee KA, Nelson ED, et al. The impact of surgical approach and urinary diversion on patient outcomes in pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 2011; 186: 1693–1698. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Braga LH, Lorenzo AJ, Farhat WA, et al. Outcome analysis and cost comparison between externalized pyeloureteral and standard stents in 470 consecutive open pyeloplasties. J Urol 2008; 180: 1693–1698; discussion1698–1699, doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008. 05.084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Yarmohamadi A, Saeedi P, Hoghabrosadat A. Surgical results of Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty without internal drainage in adults with ureteroplevic junction obstruction. Nephrourol Mon 2015; 7: e21800. doi:10.5812/numonthly. 21800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Leung L, Chan IH, Chung PH, et al. Outcomes of re-intervention for laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2016; 26: 318–323. doi:10.1089/lap.2015.0095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Nagdeve NG, Bhingare PD, Sarawade P. A randomized control trial comparing outcome after stented and nonstented Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 2018; 23: 186–191. doi:10.4103/jiaps.JIAPS_58_17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Smith KE, Holmes N, Lieb JI, et al. Stented versus nonstented pediatric pyeloplasty: a modern series and review of the literature. J Urol 2002; 168: 1127–1130. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000026415.22233.d7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Khawaja AR, Dar TI, Bashir F, et al. Stentless laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a single center experience. Urol Ann 2014; 6: 202–207. doi:10.4103/0974-7796.134258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Castagnetti M, Berrettini A, Cimador M, et al. Complications of trans-anastomotic externalised stents in open pyeloplasty: influence of the method of placement, the duration of stenting, and the associated bladder drainage. Pediatr Surg Int 2010; 26: 309–313. doi:10.1007/s00383-009-2495-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]