Journal List > Korean J Urol > v.47(8) > 1069968

TOOLS
Lim, Han, Gil, Shin, So, Kim, Yuk, Kim, Yoon, Sul, and Na: The Evaluation of a Dissolvable Ureteral Catheter in a Rabbit Model
Original Article
Korean Journal of Urology

Korean Journal of Urology 2006; 47(8): 895-902.

Published online: 31 August 2006

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2006.47.8.895

The Evaluation of a Dissolvable Ureteral Catheter in a Rabbit Model

Jae Sung Lim, Dong Seok Han, Geon Gil, Ju Hyun Shin, Seong Min So, Yong Woong Kim, Seung Mo Yuk, Hong Sik Kim, Yool Ro Yoon1, Chong Koo Sul, Yong Gil Na

Department of Urology, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea.

1Yun Hap Urologic Clinic, Daejeon, Korea.

Corresponding author (yongna@cun.ac.kr)

Received 11 January 2006       Accepted 31 May 2006

Copyright © 2006 The Korean Urological Association

Abstract

Purpose

Ureteral stents are commonly placed after routine ureteroscopic procedures to prevent acute obstruction. However, stents can cause significant symptoms and they can require a secondary procedure for removal; further, they may possibly be forgotten. In order to overcome these problems, a temporary ureteral drainage stent capable of dissolving spontaneously was developed to evaluate the tissue reaction and toxicity.

Materials and Methods

We developed a dissolvable ureteral catheter composed of polydioxanone (PDO). We evaluated the toxicity and tissue reaction by hematologic (CBC, aminotransferase/alanine transaminase (AST/ALT), blood urea nitrogen, creatinine (BUN, Cr), alkaline phosphatase) and histologic examination (ureter, kidney and liver tissue). Twelve rabbits were placed into groups of four rabbits each: the uninserted control group, group I that had a dissolvable ureteral catheter inserted with harvest at four weeks, group II that had a dissolvable ureteral catheter inserted with harvest at eight weeks, and group III that had a dissolvable ureteral catheter inserted with harvest at twelve weeks.

Results

On histologic examination, the ureter had a normal appearance of transitional cells and it contained the dissolvable ureteral catheter in the ureteral lumen without any inflammatory change. The ureteral surface cells appeared normal after contact with the dissolvable ureteral catheter during the 12 weeks. Liver and kidney tissue showed mild focal inflammatory change, but no definitive difference was noted between the control and groups I, II and III. On the hematologic examination, there was no significant change of the value of CBC, AST/ALT, BUN, Cr and alkaline phosphatase due to the inserted dissolvable ureteral catheter during the 12 weeks.

Conclusions

A dissolvable ureteral catheter appeared to have no toxic effect, as evidenced by histological and hematological examination. However, further study is warranted in order to overcome the catheter's limitations like for its flexibility.

Keywords: Ureteral catheterization

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1
(A) Preparation of p-dioxanone monomer via dehydrogenation, (B) polymerization mechanisms of p-dioxanone to poly (p-dioxanone).
kju-47-895-g001
Fig. 2
The shape of the dissolving ureteral catheters.
kju-47-895-g002
Fig. 3
Fluid collection method.
kju-47-895-g003
Fig. 4
Weight loss of the polydioxanone ureteral stent according to the immersion time.
kju-47-895-g004
Fig. 5
The change of the polydioxanone ureteral catheter surface according to the immersion time. (A) 0 weeks, (B) 8 weeks, (C) 20 weeks, (D) 28 weeks.
kju-47-895-g005
Fig. 6
The change of the polydioxanone ureteral catheter surface as viewed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). (A) Control, (B) 2 week later, (C) 8 week later, (D) control (Lt) and 8 week later (Rt).
kju-47-895-g006
Fig. 7
7. Histological examination of the ureteral cross section after 4 weeks of the indwelling dissolvable ureteral catheter. Normal appearance of the ureteral transitional cells. There are no visible inflammatory changes and the arrow indicates the dissolving ureteral catheter in the ureteral lumen (H&E stain, ×40). (A) Group I, (B) Group II, (C) Group III.
kju-47-895-g007
Fig. 8
Histological examination of the ureteral cross section after 4 weeks of the indwelling ureteral catheter (A) and the indwelling dissolving ureteral catheter (B) (H-E stain, ×40).
kju-47-895-g008
Table 1
Measurements of flow resistance
kju-47-895-i001
Table 2
The results of hematologic examination and urine analysis
kju-47-895-i002

AST: aspartate aminotransferase (IU/l), ALT: alanine aminotransferase (IU/l), ALP: alkaline phosphatase (IU/l), BUN: blood urea nitrogen (mg/dl), Cr: creatinine (mg/dl), RBC: red blood cell, WBC: white blood cell

References

1. Zimskind PD, Fetter TR, Wikerson JL. Clinical use of long-term indwelling silicone rubber ureteral splints inserted cystoscopically. J Urol. 1967. 97:840–844.
2. Pryor JL, Langley MJ, Jenkins AD. Comparison of symptom characteristics of indwelling ureteral catheters. J Urol. 1991. 145:719–722.
3. Bregg K, Riehle RA Jr. Morbidity associated with indwelling internal ureteral stents after shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1989. 141:510–512.
4. Pollard SG, Macfarlane R. Symptoms arising from Double-J ureteral stents. J Urol. 1988. 139:37–38.
5. Lennon GA, Thornhill JA, Sweency PA, Grainger R, Mc-Dermott TE, Butler MR. 'Firm' versus 'soft' double pigtail ureteric stents: a randomised blind comparative trial. Eur Urol. 1995. 28:1–5.
6. Irani J, Siquier J, Pires C, Lefebvre O, Dore B, Aubert J. Symptom characteristics and development of tolerance with in patient with indwelling double-pigtail ureteric stents. BJU Int. 1999. 84:276–279.
7. Joshi HB, Okeke A, Newns N, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG. Characterization of urinary symptoms in patients with ureteral stents. Urology. 2002. 59:511–516.
8. Seo KK, Oh CH, Moon YT. Complication of indwelling double-J ureteral stents. Koren J Urol. 1990. 31:754–758.
9. Pryor JL, Jenkins AD. Use of double-pigtail stents in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1990. 143:475–478.
10. Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG, Barry MJ. Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol. 2003. 169:1065–1069.
11. Joshi HB, Newns N, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG. Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire: development and validation of a multidimensional quality of life measure. J Urol. 2003. 169:1060–1064.
12. Joshi HB, Newns N, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG. The development and validation of a patient-information booklet on ureteric stents. BJU Int. 2001. 88:329–334.
13. Netto NR Jr, Ikonomidis J, Zillo C. Routine ureteral stenting after ureteroscopy for ureteral lithiasis: Is it really necessary? J Urol. 2001. 166:1252–1254.
14. Hosking DH, Mccolm SE, Smith WE. Is stenting following ureteroscopy for removal of distal ureteral calculi necessary? J Urol. 1999. 161:48–50.
15. Noh JH, Kim DK, Jeong H. Comparison of stented and unstented patients following ureteroscopy for ureter stones. Korean J Urol. 2002. 43:28–31.
16. Denstedt JD, Wollin TA, Sofer M, Nott L, Weir M, D'A Honey RJ. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing nonstented versus stented ureteroscopic lithotripsy. J Urol. 2001. 165:1419–1422.
17. Byrne RR, Auge BK, Kourambas J, Munver R, Delvecchio F, Preminger GM. Routine ureteral stenting is not necessary after ureteroscopy and ureteropyeloscopy: a randomized trial. J Endourol. 2002. 16:9–13.
18. Hollenbeck BK, Schuster TG, Faerber GJ, Wolf JS Jr. Routine placement of ureteral stents is unnecessary after ureteroscopy for urinary calculi. Urology. 2001. 57:639–643.
19. Chen YT, Chen J, Wong WY, Yomg SS, Hsieh CH, Wang CC. Is ureteral stenting necessary after umcomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy? A prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2002. 167:1977–1980.
20. Beiko DT, Knudsen BE, Watterson JD, Cadieux PA, Reid G, Denstedt JD. Urinary tract biomaterials. J Urol. 2004. 171:2438–2444.
21. Olweny EO, Portis AJ, Sundaram CP, Afane JS, Humphrey PA, Ewers R, et al. Evaluation of a chronic indwelling prototype mesh ureteral stent in a porcine model. Urology. 2000. 56:857–862.
22. Taylor WN, McDougall IT. Minimally invasive ureteral stent retrieval. J Urol. 2002. 168:2020–2023.
TOOLS
Similar articles