Stenting for malignant ureteral obstruction: Tandem, metal or metal-mesh stents.

Extrinsic malignant compression of the ureter is not uncommon, often refractory to decompression with conventional polymeric ureteral stents, and frequently associated with limited survival. Alternative options for decompression include tandem ureteral stents, metallic stents and metal-mesh stents, though the preferred method remains controversial. We reviewed and updated our outcomes with tandem ureteral stents for malignant ureteral obstruction, and carried out a PubMed search using the terms "malignant ureteral obstruction," "tandem ureteral stents," "ipsilateral ureteral stents," "metal ureteral stent," "resonance stent," "silhouette stent" and "metal mesh stent." A comprehensive review of the literature and summary of outcomes is provided. The majority of studies encountered were retrospective with small sample sizes. The evidence is most robust for metal stents, whereas only limited data exists for tandem or metal-mesh stents. Metal and metal-mesh stents are considerably more expensive than tandem stenting, but the potential for less frequent stent exchanges makes them possibly cost-effective over time. Urinary tract infections have been associated with all stent types. A wide range of failure rates has been published for all types of stents, limiting direct comparison. Metal and metal-mesh stents show a high incidence of stent colic, migration and encrustation, whereas tandem stents appear to produce symptoms equivalent to single stents. Comparison is difficult given the limited evidence and heterogeneity of patients with malignant ureteral obstruction. It is clear that prospective, randomized studies are necessary to effectively scrutinize conventional, tandem, metallic ureteral and metal-mesh stents for their use in malignant ureteral obstruction.

Performing in the surgical amphitheater of today: perception of urologists conducting live case demonstrations.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the perception of urologists who have participated in live case demonstrations (LCDs) regarding safety, educational value/benefits, and ethics. METHODS: A 19-question anonymous survey was sent to urologists who performed and/or moderated LCDs at the World Congress of Endourology meetings from 2008 to 2012. E-survey was distributed via e-mail, and automatic reminders were sent 2 weeks after original distribution if no response was obtained. RESULTS: Eighty-one percent (92/113) of the urologists responded to the survey of whom 75% practice full time in an academic setting. Only 48.0% were fellowship trained, however. More than 60% had performed more than five LCDs at their home and/or away institutions. Performing LCD at an away institution was associated with a higher level of anxiety when compared with performing LCDs at a home institution (79.8% vs 34.6%; P<0.01). Respondents considered film equipment and crew; audience and moderator discussions; unfamiliar team, instruments and tools; language barrier; and having to narrate the procedure, as distractors. Seventy-nine percent considered LCD as an ethical practice, and 90.5% regarded LCDs as a "beneficial" and a "great way" to educate. Similarly, considering the various factors and conditions associated with LCDs, 95% would agree to participate in another LCD. CONCLUSION: LCDs are perceived to be an effective mode of education by performers and moderators of LCDs. Standard guidelines and policies are needed, however, for the selection of patient, surgeon and team, equipment, and facility. Studies are needed to evaluate the impact of this education process.

The surgical spectacle: a survey of urologists viewing live case demonstrations.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perspectives of urologists viewing live case demonstrations (LCD) and taped case demonstrations (TCD). METHOD: A 15-question anonymous survey was distributed to attendees of the live surgery session at the American Urological Association 2012 national meeting (Atlanta) and the second International Challenges in Endourology meeting (Paris). RESULTS: Of 1000 surveys distributed, 253 were returned completed (response rate 25%). Nearly half of respondents were in the academic practice setting and nearly 75% were beyond training. Just over 30% had performed a LCD previously. The perceived benefit of an LCD was greater than unedited and edited videos (chi-squared P = 0.014 and P < 0.001, respectively). Nearly no one selected 'not helpful' and a few selected 'minimally helpful' for any of the three forms of demonstration. Most respondents identified that opportunity to ask questions (61%) and having access to the full unedited version (72%), two features inherent to LCD, improved upon the educational benefit of edited videos. Most (78%) identified LCD as ethical. However, those that did not perceived lower educational benefit from LCD (P = 0.019). A slim majority (58%) would allow themselves or a family member to be a patient of a LCD and the vast majority (86%) plan to transfer knowledge gained at the LCD session into their practice. CONCLUSIONS: Urologists who attended these LCD sessions identified LCDs as beneficial and applicable to their practice. LCDs are preferred over videos. The large majority considers LCD ethical, although not as many would volunteer themselves for LCD. Further studies are necessary to determine if there is actual benefit from LCD over TCD to patient care.

Tandem ureteral stents for the decompression of malignant and benign obstructive uropathy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of two ipsilateral ureteral stents placed for benign and malignant ureteral obstruction. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all cases of tandem ureteral stent (TUS) insertion at our institution from July 2007 through January 2013. Student t, Fisher exact, and log-rank test were used. RESULTS: TUS insertion or exchange was performed in 187 cases. There were 66 patients (75 renal units) who underwent successful TUS insertion. Malignant ureteral obstruction (MUO) was the cause for obstruction in 39 renal units (34 patients) vs benign ureteral obstruction (BUO) in 36 renal units (32 patients). Four patients with BUO and 15 patients with MUO underwent stent exchanges at a mean 145 and 128 days, respectively. Serum creatinine levels were stable poststent placement (P=0.4). Degree of hydronephrosis improved (paired t test P<0.03) after stent placement for both benign and malignant cohorts. TUS placement was noted to fail (flank pain with worsening hydronephrosis or increasing creatinine level) in five renal units with MUO (12.8%) and none with BUO. Stent failure (either conventional or TUS) suggested worsening survival in those with MUO. Median survival for those with MUO and a history of stent failure (10 of 14 died, 71%) was 66 days compared with 432 days for those without a history of stent failure (8 of 20 died, 40%) (log-rank test P=0.007). CONCLUSION: Our experience with the TUS, the largest to date, demonstrated that they are highly successful in both benign and malignant causes of obstruction, comparing favorably with metallic ureteral stents. Stent failure may be predictive for shorter survival.