Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 12, 2026

Vessel-sparing Excision and Primary Anastomosis
Published on: January 7, 2019
Outcomes of Retrograde Transileal Ureteric Stents for Chronic Urinary Drainage: Comparison with Chronic Nephrostomy
Cameron Dawson1, Lakhdeep Brar2, Cristian Rey1
1Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Medical Imaging, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Purpose:
To characterize the clinical and tube maintenance outcomes for patients with ileal conduits who require chronic urinary drainage with retrograde transileal ureteric stents (RUSs).
Materials And Methods:
A retrospective study from January 2010 to December 2021 reviewed 30 patients with chronic RUS drainage (1,148 exchange procedures), evaluating the adverse events (AEs), maintenance burden, and change in renal function. RUS results were compared with 71 conventional patients managed with chronic percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) (1,068 exchanges).
Results:
Change in renal function was not significantly different between RUS and PCN patients at 1 year (glomerular filtration rate [GFR], -10 mL/min/1.73 m2 vs -5 mL/min/1.73 m2; P = .16) and 2-3 years (GFR, -16 mL/min/1.73 m2 vs -7 mL/min/1.73 m2; P = .38) after insertion. RUS had lower rates of nonroutine interventions (5.9% vs 20.1%, P < .001) due to fewer tube dislodgement events; however, RUS required shorter routine maintenance intervals (P = .019) with median routine exchanges booked every 8.5 weeks (interquartile range [IQR], 6.3-10.9 weeks) at 3 years compared with 12.9 weeks (IQR, 9.5-13.1 weeks) for PCN patients. At 1 year after insertion, 30% of RUS patients required routine exchange intervals ≤6 weeks (3% for PCN patients). Unlike PCN, every year, more RUS patients required shorter routine maintenance intervals, typically due to tube encrustation, with 81% of patients requiring exchange intervals < 10 weeks at 4 years after insertion compared with 47% at 1 year. RUS patients experienced higher rates of moderate to severe AEs (30% vs 4.2%, P < .001), mostly due to tube dislodgements requiring a new PCN insertion under sedation to reestablish the RUS.
Conclusions:
Chronic RUS is effective for urinary diversion but requires significantly shorter intervals between routine tube maintenance than conventional PCN.
More Related Videos
05:34A Mouse Model to Evaluate the Long-Term Structural and Functional Outcomes after the Reversal of Prolonged Unilateral Ureteric Obstruction
Published on: July 18, 2025
06:39Technical Modification of the Terminal Ureter During Total Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy for Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma
Published on: November 22, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Imaging Studies V: Intravenous Urography and Retrograde Pyelography
Kidney Transplant II: Surgical Procedure
Acute Pyelonephritis II: Diagnostic Studies and Management
Urinary Tract Calculi VI: Surgical Management
Imaging Studies VI: Voiding Cystourethrography and Cystography
Acute Kidney Injury IV: Diagnostic Studies and Prevention