Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Commercial double J stents (DJS) have a uniform shape regardless of the specific nature of various ureteral diseases. We tested renovated DJS and compared them with conventional DJS using ureter models.
METHODS: One straight ureter model included stenosis at the distal ureter near the ureterovesical junction and the other did not. We used conventional DJS and renovated 5- and 6-Fr soft DJS for ureter stones and 6-, 7-, and 8.5-Fr hard DJS for tumors. The DJS comprised holes in the upper, middle, or lower one-third of the shaft (length, 24 cm; 2-cm-diameter coils at both ends). More holes were created along the shaft based on the ureteral disease location. Conventional DJS had holes spaced 1 cm apart along the shaft. Renovated DJS had holes spaced 1 cm apart along the shaft with 0.5-cm intervals on the upper, middle, or lower one-third of the shaft. Urine flow was evaluated.
RESULTS: As the DJS diameter increased, the flow rate decreased. The flow rates of DJS with holes in the lower shaft were relatively lower than those of conventional DJS and DJS with holes in the upper and middle shafts. In the ureter model without stenosis, 6-, 7-, and 8.5-Fr renovated stents exhibited significantly higher flow rates than conventional stents. In the ureter model with stenosis, 5-, 6-, 7-, and 8.5-Fr renovated stents did not exhibit significantly higher flow rates than conventional stents.
CONCLUSIONS: Renovated stents and conventional stents did not exhibit significant differences in urine flow with stenosis.
METHODS: One straight ureter model included stenosis at the distal ureter near the ureterovesical junction and the other did not. We used conventional DJS and renovated 5- and 6-Fr soft DJS for ureter stones and 6-, 7-, and 8.5-Fr hard DJS for tumors. The DJS comprised holes in the upper, middle, or lower one-third of the shaft (length, 24 cm; 2-cm-diameter coils at both ends). More holes were created along the shaft based on the ureteral disease location. Conventional DJS had holes spaced 1 cm apart along the shaft. Renovated DJS had holes spaced 1 cm apart along the shaft with 0.5-cm intervals on the upper, middle, or lower one-third of the shaft. Urine flow was evaluated.
RESULTS: As the DJS diameter increased, the flow rate decreased. The flow rates of DJS with holes in the lower shaft were relatively lower than those of conventional DJS and DJS with holes in the upper and middle shafts. In the ureter model without stenosis, 6-, 7-, and 8.5-Fr renovated stents exhibited significantly higher flow rates than conventional stents. In the ureter model with stenosis, 5-, 6-, 7-, and 8.5-Fr renovated stents did not exhibit significantly higher flow rates than conventional stents.
CONCLUSIONS: Renovated stents and conventional stents did not exhibit significant differences in urine flow with stenosis.
摘要：
目的：商用双J支架（DJS）具有均匀的形状，而与各种输尿管疾病的特定性质无关。我们测试了翻新的DJS，并使用输尿管模型将其与常规DJS进行了比较。
方法：一个直输尿管模型包括输尿管膀胱交界处附近的输尿管远端狭窄，另一个没有狭窄。我们使用常规DJS和翻新的5-和6-Fr软DJS用于输尿管结石和6-，7-,和8.5-Fr硬DJS用于肿瘤。DJS在上部包含孔，中间,或降低轴的三分之一(长度，24厘米；两端直径为2厘米的线圈）。根据输尿管疾病的位置，沿轴形成了更多的孔。常规DJS具有沿轴间隔开1cm的孔。翻新的DJS在轴上有间隔1厘米的孔，上部有0.5厘米的间隔，中间,或降低轴的三分之一。评估尿流。
结果：随着DJS直径的增加，流量下降。下轴有孔的DJS的流速相对低于常规DJS和上、中轴有孔的DJS的流速。在没有狭窄的输尿管模型中，6-，7-,8.5-Fr翻新支架的流速明显高于常规支架。在输尿管狭窄模型中，5-,6-，7-,和8.5-Fr翻新支架没有表现出比传统支架明显更高的流速。
结论：改良支架和常规支架在狭窄的尿流方面没有显着差异。
方法：一个直输尿管模型包括输尿管膀胱交界处附近的输尿管远端狭窄，另一个没有狭窄。我们使用常规DJS和翻新的5-和6-Fr软DJS用于输尿管结石和6-，7-,和8.5-Fr硬DJS用于肿瘤。DJS在上部包含孔，中间,或降低轴的三分之一(长度，24厘米；两端直径为2厘米的线圈）。根据输尿管疾病的位置，沿轴形成了更多的孔。常规DJS具有沿轴间隔开1cm的孔。翻新的DJS在轴上有间隔1厘米的孔，上部有0.5厘米的间隔，中间,或降低轴的三分之一。评估尿流。
结果：随着DJS直径的增加，流量下降。下轴有孔的DJS的流速相对低于常规DJS和上、中轴有孔的DJS的流速。在没有狭窄的输尿管模型中，6-，7-,8.5-Fr翻新支架的流速明显高于常规支架。在输尿管狭窄模型中，5-,6-，7-,和8.5-Fr翻新支架没有表现出比传统支架明显更高的流速。
结论：改良支架和常规支架在狭窄的尿流方面没有显着差异。
