Search

Introduction: Encrustation of implanted urinary tract devices is associated with significant morbidity. Pellethane ® is a polyether-based compound noted for its strength, porosity, and resistance to solvents. We assessed Pellethane thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) with and without surface coatings 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) and tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether (TETRA) for the potential to resist encrustation in an artificial urine environment. Materials and Methods: Samples of Pellethane TPU, HEMA Pellethane TPU, TETRA Pellethane TPU, and hydrogel-coated ureteral stent (Cook ® ) were suspended in a batch-flow model with an artificial urine solution (AUS). Every 48 hours for 90 days, 40% of the solution was replaced with fresh AUS. All samples were stored in a 37 ° C incubator. Subsequently, the samples were thoroughly dried for 48 hours before weighing. Scanning electron microscopy was used to assess the degree of encrustation. Nu-Attom Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) was used to determine the precise compositions of the encrustation specifically with regard to calcium, magnesium, and phosphate. Results: At the conclusion of the 90-day trial, the samples were analyzed, and the average mass changes were as follows: stent 63.78%, uncoated Pellethane TPU 11.50%, HEMA-coated Pellethane TPU 2.90%, and TETRA-coated Pellethane TPU 0.60%. Pellethane TPU products, and specifically those coated with HEMA and TETRA, exhibited less average mass increase and a lesser propensity to form encrustation than the traditional urinary tract stent. The mass increases noted on coated Pellethane devices were primarily ionic, whereas that of the stent was not. Conclusion: Pellethane, particularly with an HEMA-based preventative coating, may serve as a favorable alternative to traditional urinary stent material, providing its improved resistance to encrustation.

Introduction: We sought to compare the safety, efficacy, efficiency, and surgeon experience during upper urinary tract stone management with single-lumen (SLFU) vs dual-lumen flexible ureteroscopes (DLFU). Materials and Methods: Seventy-nine patients with proximal ureteral or renal stone burden <2 cm were randomized to a SLFU or DLFU. We recorded times for ureteroscopy (URS), laser lithotripsy, stone basketing, as well as intraoperative and postoperative complications. The rate of stone clearance and stone free status were calculated using CT imaging. Surgeons completed a survey after each procedure rating various metrics regarding ureteroscope performance. Results: Thirty-five patients from the single-lumen group and 44 patients from the dual-lumen group had comparable median URS time (37 vs 35 minutes, p = 0.984) and basketing time (12 vs 19 minutes; p = 0.584). Median lithotripsy time was decreased in the dual-lumen group (single: 6 vs dual: 2 minutes, p = 0.017). The stone clearance rate was superior in the dual-lumen group (single: 3.7 vs dual: 7.1 mm3/min, p = 0.025). The absolute stone-free rate (SFR) was superior for the dual-lumen group (single: 26% vs dual: 48%, p = 0.045). No differences in intraoperative (single: 0% vs dual: 2%; p = 0.375) and postoperative complications (single: 7% vs dual: 11%, p = 0.474) were observed. Surgeons' ratings of the dual-lumen ureteroscope was superior for visibility, comfort, ease of use, and overall performance. Conclusions: The use of the dual-lumen ureteroscope in patients with renal and proximal ureteral stones <2 cm provided shorter lithotripsy time, higher stone clearance rates, improved SFR, and superior surgeon ratings when compared with SLFUs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]