Urethral Stents: Review of Technology

and Clinical Applications

Mordechai Duvdevani, Ben H. Chew, and John D. Denstedt

Summary. Urethral stents are a minimally invasive therapy used in the treat-
ment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, urethral stricture, or detrusor sphincter
dyssynergia. This chapter reviews the different types of urethral stents, indica-
tions for their use, and clinical results. Urethral stents may be positioned in the
urethra or prostatic urethra and are classified as temporary or permanent. Tem-
porary stents are further subdivided into biodegradable and nonbiodegradable.
This form of therapy is particularly useful in patients who are at high anesthetic
risk and are unable to undergo surgical procedures considered to be the gold
standard, such as transurethral prostatectomy or open urethroplasty for prosta-
tic enlargement and urethral stricture disease. Urethral stents can provide an
effective alternative to transurethral and open procedures in many urological
disorders that affect the prostate and urethra.

Keywords. Urethra, Stent, Benign prostatic hyperplasia, Detrusor sphincter

dyssynergia, Stricture

Introduction
The term “stent” is defined as “a thread, rod, or catheter, lying within the lumen
of tubular structures, used to provide support during or after an anastomosis, or
to assure patency of an intact but contracted lumen” [1]. Urethral stents are typ-
ically made of a metal alloy or polymeric or biodegradable material in a variety
of designs that are rigid enough to maintain urethral patency.
Urethral stents are designed to relieve bladder outlet obstruction caused by
various etiologies. Indications in appropriate patients for urethral stent place-
ment include urethral stricture disease, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH),
detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia (DSD), and bladder outlet obstruction second-

Division of Urology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

191
192 M. Duvdevani et al.

Table 1. Characteristics of the ideal urethral stent

1. Easy to insert
2. Easy to remove
3. Biocompatible (i.e., induces no reaction to surrounding tissue and is not altered by the in vivo
environment)
4. Radiopaque (to facilitate stent insertion using fluoroscopy and confirm position during follow-
up radiography)
5. Rigid enough to relieve urethral obstruction
6. Resistant to encrustation and infection even after prolonged indwelling times
7. Resistant to migration
8. Comfortable
9. Internal lumen large enough to alleviate the obstruction and to facilitate cystoscopy if needed

ary to locally advanced prostate cancer [2,3]. Patients with BPH who have failed
medical management or patients with locally advanced prostate cancer causing
bladder outlet obstruction who are not medically suitable for anesthesia are
potential candidates for urethral stent insertion as opposed to an indwelling
Foley catheter or intermittent catheterization [3]. Patients with neurogenic
bladder and DSD may also benefit from a urethral stent [4,5]. Urethral stents
are placed endoscopically under either radiologic or cystoscopic control and
should be easily inserted or removed and be of large enough diameter to relieve
urethral obstruction as well as to facilitate cystoscopy if necessary. Characteris-
tics of the “ideal” urethral or prostatic stent are listed in Table 1. To date,
however, no stent encompasses all these factors.

Indications and Contraindications for Urethral

Stent Placement
There are several accepted indications for placement of a temporary or perma-
nent urethral stent, which include patients with enlargement of the prostate
gland and significant obstruction of urinary flow (BPH or patients with locally
advanced prostate cancer) who are unsuitable for surgical procedures requiring
anesthesia. Other indications for placement of urethral stents include patients
with mechanical obstruction of the urethra due to urethral stricture disease or
with functional obstruction of the bladder outlet due to DSD.
Likewise, several contraindications for urethral stent insertion exist including
acute prostatitis, an active infection of the urethra or bladder, cystolithiasis,
penile urethral stricture, stricture involving the external urethral sphincter, or
recurrent bladder tumors (these patients require repeated cystoscopy for follow-
up, which may be problematic after stent insertion).
Before placement of a urethral stent, patients should be evaluated with inves-
tigations appropriate for the underlying disease process. Irregardless of the
etiology of the stricture, a thorough anatomical and functional evaluation of the
 Urethral Stents Review 193

urethra should be performed to delineate the anatomical location and length

of the diseased area via retrograde or antegrade (if a suprapubic catheter is
present) urethrography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), uroflowmetry,
videourodynamic studies and cystoscopy. Urinary tract infection should be ruled
out with a urinalysis and culture.

Stents for the Treatment of Obstructing Prostate Tissue:

Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) and Prostate Cancer
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common and well-known cause of lower
urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men. The treatment options for symptomatic
BPH include oral alpha-blockade alone or in conjunction with 5-alpha reduc-
tase inhibitors, surgical resection of the obstructing adenoma (either open
prostatectomy or transurethral prostatectomy), or minimally invasive proce-
dures such as transurethral needle ablation, transurethral microwave treatment,
laser prostatectomy which is available in a variety of forms, and prostatic stent
placement [6,7]. Minimally invasive procedures are generally used in patients
who are unfit for surgery because serious comorbidities place them at greater
anesthetic risk [3,8,9]. Another potential indication for prostatic stent insertion
is in the patient with serious comorbidities and a greater anesthetic risk with
locally advanced prostate cancer resulting in bladder outlet obstruction.

Urethral Stricture
Urethral strictures can be classified according to their location (proximal or
distal) or their etiology, such as iatrogenic or secondary to other pathology. Iatro-
genic causes are related to previous surgical urethral manipulation including cys-
toscopy, ureteroscopy, transurethral prostatectomy or resection of bladder
tumor, catheter manipulation, pelvic irradiation, and any surgery involving the
urethra. Secondary urethral strictures may be due to previous infection such
as sexually transmitted diseases (especially gonoccocal urethritis); malignancies
such as prostate, bladder, or urethral cancer, or pelvic trauma with pelvic bone
fracture. Urethral strictures can be also idiopathic. The treatment for urethral
strictures is generally surgical and involves urethral dilatation, direct visual inter-
nal urethrotomy or open urethroplasty. The recurrence rate of strictures is
50%–75% within 2 years after endoscopic treatment [10]. Transurethral treat-
ment of urethral strictures is not suitable for every type of stricture, particularly
long strictures, strictures in conjunction with spongiofibrosis, or patients that
have had recurrent urethral strictures and prior failed treatments. For these
patients, open urethroplasty offers the highest success rate of over 90% and is
considered the gold standard of therapy [11]. Patients with serious comorbidi-
ties who are at great anesthetic risk with recurrent or long urethral strictures are
good candidates for urethral stent placement.
194 M. Duvdevani et al.

Detrusor Sphincter Dyssynergia (DSD)

Traumatic suprasacral injury to the spinal cord can cause neurogenic bladder
associated with DSD, leading to elevated bladder pressure, voiding dysfunction,
vesicoureteral reflux, nephropathy, and even loss of renal function. The primary
goal in the treatment of DSD is to lower bladder pressure to preserve renal func-
tion using either medical or surgical therapies. The standard surgical solution for
patients with DSD has been transurethral sphincterotomy, which is irreversible.
Permanent sphincter stenting can be considered as an appropriate alternative,
which would improve symptoms and preserve bladder and renal function.

Types of Urethral Stents

A variety of urethral stents is available and can be broadly classified as tempo-
rary or permanently implantable.

Temporary Stents
Temporary urethral stents maintain urethral patency and are not incorporated
into the wall of the urethra. The aim of such stents is to provide an alternative
to an indwelling urethral or suprapubic catheter for the short-term relief of
bladder outlet obstruction [7]. Temporary urethral stents enable normal mic-
turition with a success rate ranging from 50% to 90% [12]; however, cystoscopy
or urethral catheterization cannot usually be carried out with these stents in
place due to the small luminal size. Temporary stents are made of stainless steel,
biodegradable polymers [13], or a nickel titanium alloy (Table 2). Temporary
urethral stents are replaced every 6–36 months depending on the manufac-
turer’s recommendations. Other temporary stents consist of poly-D/L-lactic acid,
which is biodegradable and dissolves spontaneously over time [14]. Such stents
are used postoperatively in conjunction with minimally invasive surgery invol-
ving the urethra or prostate such as transurethral microwave therapy (TUMT)
[15] and visual laser ablation of the prostate (VLAP) [16] to provide temporary
drainage and slowly dissolve thereafter, thus precluding the need for an
indwelling urethral catheter or a subsequent procedure to remove the prostatic
stent.

Urospiral and Prostakath

The Urospiral (Porges, Paris, France) is a 21 Fr stainless steel coil that is con-
structed in three segments including a proximal portion in the prostatic urethra
extending up to 10 mm into the bladder, a midsection at the sphincteric level,
and a distal end positioned in the bulbar urethra distal to the external sphinc-
ter. The Urospiral was one of the first temporary stents that was designed for the
relief of urinary obstruction in patients with BPH. The Prostakath (Engineers &
Table 2. Temporary prostatic and urethral stents
Maximum
External Length indwelling
Stent name caliber (Fr) (mm) Composition time (months) Location Notes
Spiral stents
Urospiral (Porges, Paris, 21 40–80 Stainless steel 12 Prostate (1) Inserted with 21 Fr Endoscope under
France) direct vision or over a catheter with
Prostakath (Engineers 21 35–95 Gold-plated 12 Prostate ultrasound guidance
& Doctors, stainless steel (2) High complication rates
Copenhagen,
Den-mark)
Memokath (Doctors & 22 35–95 Nitinol 36 Prostate (1) Heat expandable
Engineers, (2) Mounted on a delivery catheter under
Kvistgaard, ultrasound or using flexible endoscope
Denmark) under direct vision
(3) Permits the passage of flexible cystoscopes
ProstaCoil (Instent, 24–30 40–80 Nitinol 36 Prostate (1) Self-expanding
Eden Prairie, MN) (2) Mounted on a delivery catheter under
fluoroscopy
(3) Permits the passage of flexible cystoscopes
Urethrospiral (Porges, 21 40–70 Stainless steel 12 Urethra
Paris, France)
UroCoil (Instent Israel, 24 40–80 Nitinol 36 Urethra
Haifa, Israel)
Urethral Stents Review
195
 196

Table 2. Continued
Maximum
External Length indwelling
Stent name caliber (Fr) (mm) Composition time (months) Location Notes
Polyurethane stents
M. Duvdevani et al.

Intraurethral Catheter 16–18 25–80 Puroflex 6 Prostate (1) Inserted under topical anesthesia using
22 Fr cystoscope
Barnes stent 16 50 Polyurethane 3 Prostate (1) Inserted using a curved introducer and a
(Angiomed, Bard, cystoscope
UK)
Trestle stent (Boston 22 75 Polyurethane 6 Prostate (1) Consists of two tubes and an
Scientific Microvasive, interconnecting string
Natick, MA) (2) Suitable for prostates of less than 80 ml
(3) The connecting string lies across the
sphincter (maintains continence)
(4) Inserted under topical anesthesia
(5) Positoned under transrectal ultrasound
control
Biodegradable stents
Biofix (Bionx Implants, 21 45–85 Polyglycolic acid, 6 Prostate (1) Degrades with time—does not require
Tampere, Finland) polylactic acid removal
(2) Used short term after minimally invasive
procedures in the prostate or urethra
 Urethral Stents Review 197

Doctors, Copenhagen, Denmark) is similar to the Urospiral but is coated with

gold in an attempt to prevent encrustation. These stents are inserted using a 21
Fr endoscope either under direct vision or using ultrasound guidance over a
catheter.

Memokath
The Memokath (Engineers & Doctors, Hornbaek, Denmark) is a nickel-titanium
alloy stent mounted on a polyurethane insertion catheter with an inflatable
balloon that is used to expand and deploy the stent within the urethra. The shaft
is 24 Fr, and the lower cone expands to 44 Fr when heated to 55°C and has “shape
memory” due to its nickel-titanium alloy construction (Fig. 1).
Deployment can be performed under ultrasound guidance or flexible cys-
toscopy using a 22 Fr insertion stent. Removal takes an average of 11 min, even
in patients who have had the stent for a mean indwelling time of 12.9 months
[17]. Removal involves flushing the stent with cool water (10°C or less), which
alters the spiral to become soft and pliable to facilitate transurethral removal.

ProstaCoil
The ProstaCoil (Instent, Minneapolis, MN, USA) is designed to be inserted under
fluoroscopic guidance. Retrograde urethrography is used to measure the
prostatic urethra and mark the bladder base and urethral sphincter. The stent is
then inserted with the patient conscious and able to cooperate. Before the end of
the procedure, the patient is asked to voluntarily stop the urinary stream during
micturition to ensure that the stent is not interfering with sphincteric function.
Antibiotic coverage is started 2–3 days before the procedure and continued
for 2 weeks after stent placement. To remove the ProstaCoil stent, a 21 Fr

Fig. 1. Memokath
198 M. Duvdevani et al.

cystoscope and endoscopic grasper are inserted transurethrally. The distal end of
the stent is grasped and pulled out of the urethra atraumatically. A second
established method for ProstaCoil stent removal is via insertion of a 12–14 Fr
Foley catheter through the stent lumen to its proximal end. The balloon is
inflated with 2–3 ml saline and pulled out of the urethra under fluoroscopic guid-
ance. Removal of the ProstaCoil stent is typically atraumatic to the anterior
urethra.

Polyurethane Stents
Three main types of temporary stents are made from polyurethane, including
the IntraUrethral Catheter (IUC), the Barnes stent, and the Trestle Catheter.
The intraurethral catheter (IUC) is a 16–18 Fr device that has a similar shape
to a double-Malecot catheter and is available in lengths of 25–80 mm. The device
is inserted under local anesthesia and direct vision using a 22 Fr, cystoscope. The
removal of the IUC is easily achieved by pulling a nonabsorbable nylon string
attached to its distal end.
The Barnes stent (Angiomed, Bard, UK) is a 16 Fr urethral device with a
length of 75 mm. The proximal end of the stent is similar to a regular urethral
catheter and the distal end resembles a Malecot catheter that is positioned prox-
imal to the verumontanum. Insertion is accomplished by using a special intro-
ducer that advances the stent into the bladder, and then a cystoscope is used to
retract the stent into the urethra to its correct position using nylon threads
attached to the distal end of the device. Removal of the Barnes stent is easy and
achieved under local anesthesia by pulling the strings.
The Trestle Catheter (Boston Scientific Microvasive, Natick, MA, USA) has
two 22 Fr tubes that are connected by a compressible thread which is positioned
across the sphincter, thus maintaining continence. The catheter is inserted under
local anesthesia and positioned under transrectal ultrasound control.

Permanent Stents
Permanent urethral stents are manipulated into the urethral lumen and become
incorporated into the wall of the urethra as urothelium covers the device. Per-
manent stents are used to alleviate bladder outlet obstruction in cases of ure-
thral stricture, DSD, or anastomotic stricture after radical prostatectomy [18,19].
The initial enthusiasm for the use of permanent stents has waned in recent years
[20]. The common permanent stents are detailed in Table 3.

UroLume
One of the most widely used permanent stents is the UroLume, which is con-
structed as a nickel superalloy wire mesh configured as a flexible expandable
tube. Originally reported in the use of bulbar urethral strictures [21], it rapidly
found use in patients with BPH [22] and DSD [23].
 Urethral Stents Review 199

Table 3. Permanent prostatic and urethral stents

External
caliber Length
Stent name (Fr) (mm) Composition Location Notes
UroLume 42 20–30 Biocompatible Prostate or (1) Inserted with
(American superalloy urethra 21 Fr
Medical Systems, woven tubular endoscope
Minnetonka, mesh under direct
MN, USA) vision
(2) Gradual
epithelization
over the wires
of the mesh
Memotherm (Bard, 42 15–80 Nitinol woven Prostate or (1) Heat
Covington, GA, single wire urethra expandable
USA) (2) Inserted with
endoscope
under direct
vision
Ultraflex (Boston 42 20–60 Nitinol Prostate or (1) Heat
Scientific, Natick, urethra expandable
MA, USA)

The UroLume is inserted using an introducer that resembles a cystoscope. The

procedure is performed under general, regional, or local anesthesia. The correct
length of stent is chosen by measuring the urethra from the bladder neck to the
distal urethral sphincter under direct vision. The stent is placed under direct
vision distal to the bladder neck and proximal to the distal urethral sphincter so
that the patient maintains urinary continence.
Although it is meant to be permanent, removal of the UroLume stent is pos-
sible when necessary. To remove the UroLume stent, a standard resectoscope
and loop cautery or Colling’s knife is used to resect the overlying urothelium
and push the stent into the bladder, after which it is extracted transurethrally
through a larger sheath.

Memotherm
The Memotherm is a 42 Fr coil-shaped stent made of nickel-titanium alloy
(NiTinol). The Memotherm is positioned within the urethra using an endoscope
and insertion catheter under direct vision. The stent is heat expandable with the
ability of changing from one configuration to another at different temperatures.
After the stent is positioned in the desired location, it is flushed with 45°C water,
causing the NiTinol stent to expand. Removal of the Memotherm stent is
achieved by irrigating with 15°C water, which softens the metal, causing it to
uncoil.
200 M. Duvdevani et al.

Clinical Results with Urethral Stents

Stents for the Treatment of Benign Prostatic
Hyperplasia (BPH)
The prostatic stent was first described by Fabian in 1980, who named it the
“partial catheter” [24]. The use of prostatic stents for the treatment of bladder
outlet obstruction is known to be safe and effective [8], offers immediate relief,
and has 7-year follow-up data [6].
Several stent types have been investigated in patients with bladder outlet
obstruction from BPH. Poulsen et al. investigated the use of the Memokath stent
and report an 83% success rate in 30 patients with BPH without problems of
stent migration, but stent encrustation occurred [25]. Most patients, however,
were satisfied with this minimally invasive outpatient procedure for BPH. The
first use of the UroLume stent in urology was to treat bulbar urethral strictures
in patients who had failed internal urethrotomy [21]. Since then, the indications
for UroLume stent insertion have widened to include patients with symptomatic
BPH [26–28] and in particular those patients who are unfit for anesthesia and
surgical treatment [22].

Urethral Stricture
Several trials have reported the utilization of stents for urethral stricture disease.
Shah et al. reported the long-term results of the UroLume endourethral pros-
thesis in the treatment of recurrent bulbar urethral strictures in a multicenter
North American trial [29]. The study included 24 patients with recurrent bulbar
urethral strictures treated with a UroLume stent and 11 years of follow-up. Pre-
operative evaluation included uroflowmetry (peak and average urinary flow
rates), a urinary symptom questionnaire, and cystoscopy to determine the length
and location of the stricture. They found a dramatic improvement in the mean
flow rates after stenting (9.5 to 20.8 ml/s) and in the mean urinary symptom
scores. Complete epithelialization of more than 90% of the surface area of the
stent was seen in the majority of patients (90%) at 1 year follow-up and was per-
sistent through 11 years. The authors recommend this stent for patients with
bulbar urethral strictures of less than 3 cm and after at least two recurrences fol-
lowing endoscopic dilation or incision. The distance from the external sphincter
should be at least 10 mm to conserve urinary continence.
Badlani et al. reviewed the long-term results of the North American
Multicenter UroLume Trial for the treatment of recurrent bulbar urethral stric-
tures [30]. This multicenter prospective controlled trial included 175 patients
with a bulbar urethral stricture who failed prior treatment attempts including
urethral dilatation, visual internal urethrotomy, or urethroplasty (25%). Etiol-
ogy of the strictures was attributed to prior instrumentation (21.6%), urethral
catheterization (14.9%), trauma (18.9%), inflammation/congenital problems
 Urethral Stents Review 201

(8.1%), or idiopathic (36.5%). The mean stricture length was 2.34 cm. Follow-up
was undertaken at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and annually after urethral stent
insertion.
The study demonstrated a continuous improvement in symptom score values
and peak and mean urine flow rates. Fifteen percent of the patients required
further treatment for recurrent stricture within (44%) or adjacent (56%) to the
stent. Only seven patients (4%) required stent removal, and 14.3% required
adjuvant treatment after 1 year compared to 75.2% of controls. There was
no significant difference in the rate of urinary tract infection before and after
stent insertion, and the only predictive factor of postinsertion infection was a
positive preoperative urine culture. Stent migration occurred in 4% of patients
and occurred predominantly in the first 6 weeks after insertion. Pain and dis-
comfort in stented patients decreased progressively with time from 62% after 6
weeks to 11% at 2 years of follow-up. Severe urinary incontinence was found in
4.3% and 2.5% of the patients after 6 weeks and 2 years of follow-up, respec-
tively. Mild hematuria was noted postoperatively in 26% of the patients but
improved to 4% at 2 years. Five patients (3%) had urinary retention after stent
insertion. One of these patients developed hyperplastic tissue between two pre-
viously placed stents and was treated by insertion of a third stent to bridge the
gap between the two existing stents. The other episodes of urinary retention
occurred as a result of a new or preexisting urethral stricture adjacent to the
stent.
Patients with longer urethral strictures or those that have failed a previous
stent insertion may require the placement of more than one stent. Tillem et al.
reported on the use of multiple UroLume stents in complex bulbar urethral stric-
tures in 41 patients from the 175 (23%) patients enrolled in the UroLume
endourethral prosthesis study for recurrent bulbar urethral strictures [31].
Patients who required multiple stents generally had longer strictures with a mean
length of 3.6 cm (range, 1.5–6.0). Of the 41 subjects, 32, 6, and 3 patients required
two, three, and four stents, respectively. Multiple stents were inserted either
simultaneously during the primary procedure (61%) or in a subsequent proce-
dure (39%). Peak urine flow rates and symptom scores were significantly
improved in these patients, who showed a similar benefit to other patients in this
study who underwent single stent insertion. Patients with urethral strictures
longer than 2.5 cm are more likely to require the insertion of multiple stents. Fur-
thermore, patients with multiple stents are more likely to require retreatment,
but fortunately the success rate after retreatments is equal to those patients with
a single stent. Indications for multiple stent insertion includes strictures longer
than 2.5 cm, strictures that were underestimated in length, malpositioned stents,
stent migration, recurrent stricture separate from the previously stented region,
or simple urethral narrowing adjacent to the stent.
Wilson et al. reported on a small series where all DSD patients (n = 4) stented
with a UroLume suffered urosepsis within 10 months and required hospitaliza-
tion [20]. All six patients with urethral strictures had recurrences, and required
subsequent surgery, and stent removal was not always straightforward.
202 M. Duvdevani et al.

Detrusor Sphincter Dyssynergia (DSD)

The use of urethral stents for DSD was reported in 1990 [23], and a subse-
quent study demonstrated equivalent long-term results compared to surgical
sphincterotomy [32].
Shah et al. assessed 14 male patients with suprasacral spinal cord injury and
documented DSD with elevated detrusor pressures and postvoiding residual
(PVR) volumes [33]. Patients underwent Memokath stent insertion and were
reviewed at 1 month and every 3 months thereafter to assess for urinary tract
infection (UTI), autonomic dysreflexia, erectile function, PVR volume, bladder
stones, and signs of upper tract obstruction. They found a significant reduction
in the PVR volume and improvement in hydronephrosis and autonomic dysre-
flexia after stent insertion. Six of eight (75%) patients who had a history of recur-
rent UTIs experienced a decrease in UTI occurrence following stent insertion,
presumably from improved PVR volumes.
Denys et al., in a study of 47 consecutive male patients with DSD secondary
to a spinal cord lesion, reviewed the efficacy of the Ultraflex urethral stent
(Boston Scientific, Boston, MA, USA) [34]. The stent was inserted endosco-
pically under local, neuroleptic, or general anesthesia. Twenty-one patients
(44.6%) with a history of recurrent symptomatic infections had significantly
fewer UTIs postoperatively (P = 0.001). Improvement in autonomic dysreflexia
occurred in 5 of 8 stented patients, as well as an improvement in preoperative
hydronephrosis in 7 of 8 patients (P = 0.005).
Voiding function is also improved in DSD and spinal cord injury patients [35].
Patients who used an indwelling urinary catheter or intermittent catheterization
for urinary drainage were able to void spontaneously into a condom catheter
after stent placement. These results were also accompanied by a significant
decrease in the occurrence of autonomic dysreflexia, symptomatic UTIs, and
hydronephrosis. Hamid et al. evaluated the Memokath urethral stent, in 25
patients with DSD [36] with a mean age was 45.5 years (range, 32–65 years). Pre-
operatively, the majority of patients (80%) were draining their bladder using
a reflex voiding with a condom drainage system, and the remaining patients
used an indwelling suprapubic catheter or clean intermittent urethral self-
catheterization. After stent insertion, the patients demonstrated a significant re-
duction in maximum detrusor pressure, duration of detrusor contraction, and
residual urine volume. In fact, bladder function and urinary drainage improved
to the point that preexisting hydronephrosis in 4 patients resolved.
Not all studies have found beneficial effects using urethral stents. Mehta et al.
reviewed 29 patients with 33 Memokath stents who suffered from spinal cord
injury patients and DSD [37]. These authors found the working life of the stent
to be 21 months, with a high complication rate. Their overall experience with
Memokath stents was disappointing, which has led them to abandon the use of
this stent. Moreover, removal is necessary when there is extensive mucosal pro-
liferation leading to lumenal obstruction [38]. Chronic infection and migration
 Urethral Stents Review 203

have been other issues limiting the indwelling time of this stent in DSD patients
[39].

Complications
The use of urethral stents in urology is not free of complications. Patients who
require cystoscopy to treat and follow certain urological conditions such as
urinary stone disease, transitional cell carcinoma, or any other problems that
require recurrent endoscopic manipulations should be precluded from stent
insertion with certain stent types. Urethral stents are a foreign body and may
cause irritative urinary symptoms such as frequency, urgency, dysuria, or urge
incontinence. Other potential complications include encrustation, stent fracture,
migration, UTI, hematuria, and clot retention [2,35].
Stent positioning is important, and complications may occur when a stent is
placed distal to the bulbous urethra, resulting in incontinence or pain while
sitting or during intercourse [40]. Shah et al. reviewed the data related to the
explantation of UroLume urethral stents in the North American Study Group,
which included 465 patients [41]. A total of 73 stents (15.6%) were removed from
69 patients (14.8%). Characteristics of the patients that underwent stent removal
were examined: the explantation rate was 23%, 5%, and 22% from patients with
BPH, bulbar urethral stricture, and DSD, respectively. Thirty-two stents (44.4%)
were removed during the first year after insertion, with stent migration being
the primary reason in 38.4% of explantations. Other reasons for stent removal
included worsening symptoms, stent encrustation, and incomplete luminal
epithelialization.

Conclusions
There are several possible indications for urethral stent placement, including
urethral stricture disease, BPH, and DSD. Much progress has been made during
the last decade in the field of urethral stenting. Currently, one can choose an
appropriate stent from a wide variety of temporary and permanent urethral
stents. Although it is often not considered a definitive treatment, urethral stent-
ing offers an alternative minimally invasive procedure to relieve the symptoms
of bladder outlet obstruction in high surgical risk patients and as an alternative
to open urethroplasty in select populations.

References
1. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, edn (2006) Houghton
Mifflin, Boston
2. Badlani GH (1997) Role of permanent stents. J Endourol 11:473–475
204 M. Duvdevani et al.

3. Slutzker D, Richter S, Lang R, Nissenkorn I (1994) The use of a prostatic stent in high
risk patients over 80 years old with benign prostatic hyperplasia and chronic reten-
tion. J Am Geriatr Soc 42:1004–1005
4. Juma S, Niku SD, Brodak PP, Joseph AC (1994) Urolume urethral wallstent in the
treatment of detrusor sphincter dyssynergia. Paraplegia 32:616–621
5. Soni BM, Vaidyanatham S, Krishnan KR (1994) Use of Memokath, a second gener-
ation urethral stent for relief of urinary retention in male spinal cord injured patients.
Paraplegia 32:480–488
6. Kapoor R, Liatsikos EN, Badlani G (2000) Endoprostatic stents for management of
benign prostatic hyperplasia. Curr Opin Urol 10:19–22
7. Ogiste JS, Cooper K, Kaplan SA (2003) Are stents still a useful therapy for benign
prostatic hyperplasia? Curr Opin Urol 13:51–57
8. Lam JS, Volpe MA, Kaplan SA (2001) Use of prostatic stents for the treatment of
benign prostatic hyperplasia in high-risk patients. Curr Urol Rep 2:277–284
9. Nagae H, Mugiya S (2002) Other less invasive surgical therapy for BPH (urethral
stent). Nippon Rinsho 60 (suppl 11):408–412
10. Steenkamp JW, Heyns CF, de Kock ML (1997) Internal urethrotomy versus dilation as
treatment for male urethral strictures: a prospective, randomized comparison. J Urol
157:98–101
11. Santucci RA, McAninch JW, Mario LA, Rajpurkar A, Chopra AK, Miller KS,
Armenakas NA, Tieng EB, Morey AF (2004) Urethroplasty in patients older than
65 years: indications, results, outcomes and suggested treatment modifications. J Urol
172:201–203
12. Fitzpatrick JM, Mebust WK (2002) Minimally invasive and endoscopic management
of benign prostatic hyperplasia. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ (eds)
Campbell’s Urology, 8th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, p 1381
13. Isotalo T, Nuutinen JP, Vaajanen A, Martikainen PM, Laurila M, Tormala P, Talja M,
Tammela TL (2005) Biocompatibility and implantation properties of 2 differently
braided, biodegradable, self-reinforced polylactic acid urethral stents: an experimen-
tal study in the rabbit. J Urol 174:2401–2404
14. Talja M, Valimaa T, Tammela T, Petas A, Tormala P (1997) Bioabsorbable and
biodegradable stents in urology. J Endourol 11:391–397
15. Djavan B, Ghawidel K, Basharkhah A, Hruby S, Bursa B, Marberger M (1999) Tem-
porary intraurethral prostatic bridge-catheter compared with neoadjuvant and adju-
vant alpha-blockade to improve early results of high-energy transurethral microwave
thermotherapy. Urology 54:73–80
16. Petas A, Talja M, Tammela TL, Taari K, Valimaa T, Tormala P (1997) The biodegrad-
able self-reinforced poly-dl-lactic acid spiral stent compared with a suprapubic
catheter in the treatment of post-operative urinary retention after visual laser abla-
tion of the prostate. Br J Urol 80:439–443
17. Barber NJ, Roodhouse AJ, Rathenborg P, Nordling J, Ellis BW (2005) Ease of removal
of thermo-expandable prostate stents. BJU Int 96:578–580
18. Zivan I, Stein A (2001) New modality for treatment of resistant anastomotic stric-
tures after radical prostatectomy: UroLume urethral stent. J Endourol 15:869–871
19. Elliott DS, Boone TB (2001) Combined stent and artificial urinary sphincter for man-
agement of severe recurrent bladder neck contracture and stress incontinence after
prostatectomy: a long-term evaluation. J Urol 165:413–415
20. Wilson TS, Lemack GE, Dmochowski RR (2002) UroLume stents: lessons learned.
J Urol 167:2477–2480
 Urethral Stents Review 205

21. Milroy EJ, Chapple CR, Cooper JE, Eldin A, Wallsten H, Seddon AM, Rowles PM
(1988) A new treatment for urethral strictures. Lancet 1:1424–1427
22. Williams G, Jager R, McLoughlin J, el Din A, Machan L, Gill K, Asopa R, Adam A
(1989) Use of stents for treating obstruction of urinary outflow in patients unfit for
surgery. BMJ 298:1429
23. Shaw PJ, Milroy EJ, Timoney AG, el Din A, Mitchell N (1990) Permanent external
striated sphincter stents in patients with spinal injuries. Br J Urol 66:297–302
24. Fabian KM (1980) The intra-prostatic “partial catheter” (urological spiral) (author’s
transl). Urologe A 19:236–238
25. Poulsen AL, Schou J, Ovesen H, Nordling J (1993) Memokath: a second generation
of intraprostatic spirals. Br J Urol 72:331–334
26. Anjum MI, Chari R, Shetty A, Keen M, Palmer JH (1997) Long-term clinical results
and quality of life after insertion of a self-expanding flexible endourethral prosthe-
sis. Br J Urol 80:885–888
27. Masood S, Djaladat H, Kouriefs C, Keen M, Palmer JH (2004) The 12-year outcome
analysis of an endourethral wallstent for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU
Int 94:1271–1274
28. Milroy E, Chapple CR (1993) The UroLume stent in the management of benign
prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 150:1630–1635
29. Shah DK, Paul EM, Badlani GH (2003) 11-year outcome analysis of endourethral
prosthesis for the treatment of recurrent bulbar urethral stricture. J Urol 170:
1255–1258
30. Badlani GH, Press SM, Defalco A, Oesterling JE, Smith AD (1995) Urolume
endourethral prosthesis for the treatment of urethral stricture disease: long-term
results of the North American Multicenter UroLume Trial. Urology 45:846–856
31. Tillem SM, Press SM, Badlani GH (1997) Use of multiple urolume endourethral
prostheses in complex bulbar urethral strictures. J Urol 157:1665–1668
32. Chancellor MB, Bennett C, Simoneau AR, Finocchiaro MV, Kline C, Bennett JK,
Foote JE, Green BG, Martin SH, Killoran RW, Crewalk JA, Rivas DA (1999) Sphinc-
teric stent versus external sphincterotomy in spinal cord injured men: prospective
randomized multicenter trial. J Urol 161:1893–1898
33. Shah NC, Foley SJ, Edhem I, Shah PJ (1997) Use of Memokath temporary urethral
stent in treatment of detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia. J Endourol 11:485–488
34. Denys P, Thiry-Escudie I, Ayoub N, Even-Schneider A, Benyahya S, Chartier-Kastler
E (2004) Urethral stent for the treatment of detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia:
evaluation of the clinical, urodynamic, endoscopic and radiological efficacy after more
than 1 year. J Urol 172:605–607
35. Juan Garcia FJ, Salvador S, Montoto A, Lion S, Balvis B, Rodriguez A, Fernandez M,
Sanchez J (1999) Intraurethral stent prosthesis in spinal cord injured patients with
sphincter dyssynergia. Spinal Cord 37:54–57
36. Hamid R, Arya M, Wood S, Patel HR, Shah PJ (2003) The use of the Memokath stent
in the treatment of detrusor sphincter dyssynergia in spinal cord injury patients: a
single-centre seven-year experience. Eur Urol 43:539–543
37. Mehta SS, Tophill PR (2006) Memokath stents for the treatment of detrusor sphinc-
ter dyssynergia (DSD) in men with spinal cord injury: The Princess Royal Spinal
Injuries Unit 10-year experience. Spinal Cord 44(1):1–6
38. Vaidyanathan S, Soni BM, Oo T, Sett P, Hughes PL, Singh G (2002) Long-term result
of Memokath urethral sphincter stent in spinal cord injury patients. BMC Urol
2:12
206 M. Duvdevani et al.

39. Low AI, McRae PJ (1998) Use of the Memokath for detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia
after spinal cord injury—a cautionary tale. Spinal Cord 36:39–44
40. Chapman SM, Wemyss-Holden GD, Clarke NW (1994) Urinary incontinence fol-
lowing urethral Wallstent insertion. Br J Urol 73:586
41. Shah DK, Kapoor R, Badlani GH (2003) Experience with urethral stent explanta-
tion. J Urol 169:1398–1400