4.6 Article

Novel Strategy for Temporary Decompression of the Lower Urinary Tract in Neonates Using a Ureteral Stent

Journal

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 194, Issue 4, Pages 1086-1090

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.04.102

Keywords

infant; newborn; stents; ureter; urinary bladder neck obstruction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: In children with congenital obstructive uropathy, including posterior urethral valves, lower urinary tract decompression is recommended pending definitive surgical intervention. Current options, which are limited to a feeding tube or Foley catheter, pose unappreciated constraints in luminal diameter and are associated with potential problems. We assess the impact of luminal diameter on the current draining options and present a novel alternative method, repurposing a widely available stent that optimizes drainage. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients diagnosed with posterior urethral valves between January 2013 and December 2014. In all patients a 6Fr 12 cm Double-J (R) ureteral stent was advanced over a guidewire in a retrograde fashion into the bladder. Luminal flow and cross-sectional areas were also assessed for each of 3 tubes for urinary drainage, ie 6Fr Double-J stent, 5Fr feeding tube and 6Fr Foley catheter. Results: A total of 30 patients underwent uneventful bedside Double-J stent placement. Mean +/- SD age at valve ablation was 28.5 +/- 16.6 days. Mean +/- SD peak serum creatinine was 2.23 +/- 0.97 mg/dl after birth and 0.56 +/- 0.22 mg/dl at the procedure. Urine output after stent placement was excellent in all patients. The Foley catheter and feeding tube drained approximately 18 and 6 times more slowly, respectively, and exhibited half the calculated cross-sectional luminal area compared to the Double-J stent. Conclusions: Use of Double-J stents in neonates with posterior urethral valves is a safe and effective alternative method for lower urinary tract decompression that optimizes the flow/lumen relationship compared to conventional drainage options.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available