Ureteral stents: What your eyes can’t see! An in vitro study

Abstract

ObjectivesTo characterize and compare in vitro the surfaces of ureteral stents (STENTS) before utilization. MethodsOur in vitro experiment included six unused STENTS models: three double-pigtail with side orifices (ImaJin and Stenostent [Coloplast©,France], TriaSoft [BostonScientific©,USA]), two double-pigtail without side orifice (Vortek-TumorStent [Coloplast©,France], Urosoft-TumorStent [Bard-Angiomed©,Germany]) and one single-pigtail (J-Fil [Rocamed©,Monaco]). STENTS were made of polyurethane except for ImaJin (silicone). For all STENTS, four parts of the stent were specifically analyzed under high-resolution scanning electron microscopy (HR-SEM,FEI-XL40 [Philips©,France]): surface core, lateral orifice, ureteral loop, and black marking surface. Each experiment was repeated with three different samples from three different stents. STENTS analysis included multiple imperfection searches, defined as irregularities>10μm. ResultsAll STENTS presented imperfections with no discernible differences. Imperfections were mainly located on the stent loop and on the lateral orifice. For STENTS without side orifice (J-Fil, Urosoft) imperfections were also reported, on the beveled cut as well as the distal loop orifice. Marking surfaces examinations found defects in the Urosoft and imperfections in the ImaJin and Stenostent. The Triasoft presented a better smoothness on marking surfaces compared to other STENTS. Additional matter was reported on the loop distal orifice for J-Fil and ImaJin but all STENTS presented irregular cross-sectional aeras. ConclusionAll ureteral stents are not perfectly smooth even before utilization. Imperfections were noticed regardless to stent composition or shape, and could play a role in the incrustation phenomenon, is association with inner irregularities, infection, and urine composition. Both manufacturing and material could have an impact on the stent external surface's smoothness. Level of evidence3