Comparison between double-pigtail ureteral stents and ureteral bypass devices for treatment of ureterolithiasis in cats.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To compare the complication rates and outcomes in cats with ureteral obstruction treated by placement of double-pigtail ureteral stents or ureteral bypass (UB) devices. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. ANIMALS Cats with unilateral or bilateral ureterolithiasis that received double-pigtail ureteral stents (30 stents in 27 cats; stent group) or UB devices (30 devices in 23 cats; UB group). PROCEDURES Medical records were reviewed to collect data on signalment, clinical signs, serum biochemical data, surgical procedure, duration of hospitalization, complications, and follow-up (≥ 6 months after placement) information. Outcomes were compared between device types. RESULTS Median durations of surgery and hospitalization were significantly longer in the stent versus UB group. Perioperative mortality rate was 18% (5/27) in the stent group and 13% (3/23) in the UB group. Median survival time was shorter in the stent versus UB group. Stent placement was associated with a greater risk of lower urinary tract-related signs, such as hematuria (52% [14/27]) and pollakiuria or stranguria (48% [13/27]). The risk of device occlusion was also greater in the stent (26% [7/27]) versus UB (4% [1/23]) group. The percentage of cats requiring additional procedures to treat complications was greater in the stent (44%; complications included uroabdomen, stent occlusion, and refractory cystitis) versus UB (9%; complications included UB occlusion and urethral obstruction) group. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Although the benefits of stent placement in the treatment of ureteral obstruction in cats have been established, results suggested that cats treated with UB devices had a lower risk of complications and a longer survival time than those treated with double-pigtail ureteral stents.