Objectives: To initially evaluate the outcomes of the modified triangular prismatic double-J (DJ) stent in the management of 2- to 3-cm renal stones after one-stage retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Methods: Patients with 2- to 3-cm renal stones who underwent one-stage RIRS with indwelling DJ stents were retrospectively evaluated. Eighty-eight patients who were placed the triangular prismatic DJ stents and 64 patients who received standard DJ stents were randomly included. The clinical characteristics and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of the 2 groups were compared and analyzed. Results: The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. The urinary symptom score and pain score did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). The residual fragments of the 2 groups were similar 1 day after operation (p = 0.134). There was no significant difference in residual fragments in the lower calyx between groups at the time of stent removal (p = 0.834). The patients in the modified group had better spontaneous passage of residual fragments in the nonlower calyx than those in the standard group during the 2 weeks with the stents (p = 0.005). Fewer patients in the modified group had residual fragments (>4 mm) in the nonlower calyx (p = 0.026) and ureter (p = 0.010) than the patients with standard stents at the time of stent removal. Conclusion: The indwelling triangular prismatic DJ stent is a safe and efficient treatment method. Patients with these stents had better spontaneous residual fragment passage than those with the standard DJ stents.

1.
Haleblian
G
,
Kijvikai
K
,
de la Rosette
J
,
Preminger
G
.
Ureteral stenting and urinary stone management: a systematic review
.
J Urol
.
2008
;
179
(
2
):
424
30
. .
2.
Mittakanti
HR
,
Conti
SL
,
Pao
AC
,
Chertow
GM
,
Liao
JC
,
Leppert
JT
, et al.
Unplanned emergency department visits and hospital admissions following ureteroscopy: Do ureteral stents make a difference?
Urology
.
2018
;
117
:
44
9
. .
3.
Wagenlehner
FM
,
Pilatz
A
,
Weidner
W
.
Urosepsis: from the view of the urologist
.
Int J Antimicrob Agents
.
2011 Dec
;
38
(
Suppl
):
51
7
. .
4.
Pais
VM
,
Smith
RE
,
Stedina
EA
,
Rissman
CM
.
Does omission of ureteral stents increase risk of unplanned return visit? A systematic review and meta-analysis
.
J Urol
.
2016
;
196
(
5
):
1458
66
. .
5.
Karakoyunlu
AN
,
Cakici
MC
,
Sari
S
,
Hepsen
E
,
Ozok
HU
,
Sagnak
AL
, et al.
Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy methods for management of big-sized kidney stones (? 4 cm): single center retrospective study
.
Urol J
.
2019
;
16
(
3
):
232
5
. .
6.
Kang
SK
,
Cho
KS
,
Kang
DH
,
Jung
HD
,
Kwon
JK
,
Lee
JY
.
Systematic review and meta-analysis to compare success rates of retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2 cm: an update
.
Medicine
.
2017
;
96
(
49
):
e9119
.
7.
Atis
G
,
Culpan
M
,
Pelit
ES
,
Canakci
C
,
Ulus
I
,
Gunaydin
B
, et al.
Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in treating 20–40 mm renal stones
.
Urol J
.
2017
;
14
(
2
):
2995
9
..
8.
De
S
,
Autorino
R
,
Kim
FJ
,
Zargar
H
,
Laydner
H
,
Balsamo
R
, et al.
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Eur Urol
.
2015
;
67
(
1
):
125
37
. .
9.
Inn
FX
,
Ahmed
N
,
Hou
LG
,
Abidin
ZAZ
,
Yi
LL
,
Zainuddin
ZM
.
Intravesical stent position as a predictor of quality of life in patients with indwelling ureteral stent
.
Int Urol Nephrol
.
2019
;
51
(
11
):
1949
53
. .
10.
Danilovic
A
,
Rocha
BA
,
Torricelli
FCM
,
Marchini
GS
,
Batagello
C
,
Vicentini
FC
, et al.
Size is not everything that matters: preoperative CT predictors of stone free after RIRS
.
Urology
.
2019
;
132
:
63
8
. .
11.
Hein
S
,
Miernik
A
,
Wilhelm
K
,
Adams
F
,
Schlager
D
,
Herrmann
TR
, et al.
Clinical significance of residual fragments in 2015: impact, detection, and how to avoid them
.
World J Urol
.
2016
;
34
(
6
):
771
8
. .
12.
Zheng
C
,
Xiong
B
,
Wang
H
,
Luo
J
,
Zhang
C
,
Wei
W
, et al.
Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal stones >2 cm: a meta-analysis
.
Urol Int
.
2014
;
93
(
4
):
417
24
.
13.
Baumgarten
L
,
Desai
A
,
Shipman
S
,
Eun
DD
,
Pontari
MA
,
Mydlo
JH
, et al.
Spontaneous passage of ureteral stones in patients with indwelling ureteral stents
.
Can J Urol
.
2017
;
24
(
5
):
9024
9
..
14.
Ordonez
M
,
Hwang
EC
,
Borofsky
M
,
Bakker
CJ
,
Gandhi
S
,
Dahm
P
.
Ureteral stent versus no ureteral stent for ureteroscopy in the management of renal and ureteral calculi
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2019
;
2
:
D12703
..
15.
Dauw
CA
,
Simeon
L
,
Alruwaily
AF
,
Sanguedolce
F
,
Hollingsworth
JM
,
Roberts
WW
, et al.
Contemporary practice patterns of flexible ureteroscopy for treating renal stones: results of a worldwide survey
.
J Endourol
.
2015
;
29
(
11
):
1221
30
. .
16.
Kuebker
JM
,
Robles
J
,
Kramer
JJ
,
Miller
NL
,
Herrell
SD
,
Hsi
RS
.
Predictors of spontaneous ureteral stone passage in the presence of an indwelling ureteral stent
.
Urolithiasis
.
2019
;
47
(
4
):
395
400
. .
17.
Wang
H
,
Man
L
,
Li
G
,
Huang
G
,
Liu
N
,
Wang
J
.
Meta-analysis of stenting versus non-stenting for the treatment of ureteral stones
.
PLoS One
.
2017
;
12
(
1
):
e0167670
. .
18.
Nevo
A
,
Mano
R
,
Baniel
J
,
Lifshitz
DA
.
Ureteric stent dwelling time: a risk factor for post-ureteroscopy sepsis
.
BJU Int
.
2017
;
120
(
1
):
117
22
. .
19.
Shigemura
K
,
Yasufuku
T
,
Yamanaka
K
,
Yamahsita
M
,
Arakawa
S
,
Fujisawa
M
.
How long should double J stent be kept in after ureteroscopic lithotripsy?
Urol Res
.
2012
;
40
(
4
):
373
6
. .
20.
Balawender
K
,
Orkisz
S
.
The impact of pelvicalyceal anatomy on the stone formation in patients with lower pole renal stones
.
Folia Morphol
.
2018
;
77
(
1
):
16
21
. .
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.