Preview

Urology Herald

Advanced search

Ureteral stent and temporary disability

https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2025-13-4-25-30

Abstract

Introduction. Drainage of the upper urinary tract using a temporary internal ureteral stent is frequently associated with significant stent-related symptomatology in many patients and constitutes a major contributor to functional impairment during the stent indwelling period.

Objective. To evaluate temporary disability in patients with ureteral stent. To compare clinical symptoms, the nature of work, the patient’s subjective assessment of his ability to work, medical and social confirmation of the temporary disability.

Materials & methods. The study included 134 officially employed patients whose duration of upper urinary tract stenting did not exceed two months. Patients were asked to respond to five questions regarding their assessment of well-being and work capacity during the stent indwelling period. Responses to the questions were obtained from all respondents.

Results. Stent-associated symptomatology was observed in 76.1% of patients. Throughout the entire duration of upper urinary tract drainage, 61.9% of patients remained functionally incapacitated. Notably, 25.3% of those classified as incapacitated were asymptomatic with respect to the presence of the stent. Conversely, 64.9% of all patients reported preserved work capacity. The proportion of patients formally exempted from physically demanding occupational activities exceeded that of those excused from mentally demanding work (59.3% vs 45.3%, respectively).

Conclusions. Drainage with an internal stent in most cases justifies assigning the patient a temporary disability status. When determining temporary incapacity for work, the physician should base their decision on the following parameters: presence of local symptomatology, nature of the patient's occupational activity, and the patient's subjective assessment of their condition.

About the Authors

I. E. Mamaev
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov Medical University); Buyanov Moscow City Hospital
Russian Federation

Ibragim E. Mamaev – Cand.Sc.(Med)

Moscow



G. Sh. Saypulaev
Buyanov Moscow City Hospital
Russian Federation

Gadzhimurad Sh. Saipulaev

Moscow



K. A. Dolomanov
Buyanov Moscow City Hospital
Russian Federation

Kirill A. Dolomanov

Moscow



K. I. Glinin
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov Medical University); Buyanov Moscow City Hospital
Russian Federation

Kirill I. Glinin

Moscow



S. V. Kotov
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov Medical University); «Kommunarka» Moscow Multidisciplinary Clinical Centre; Pirogov City Clinical Hospital № 1
Russian Federation

Sergey V. Kotov – Dr.Sc.(Med), Full Prof.

Moscow



References

1. Tolley D. Ureteric stents, far from ideal. Lancet. 2000;356(9233):872-873. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02674-X

2. Saltzman B. Ureteral stents. Indications, variations, and complications. Urol Clin North Am. 1988;15(3):481-491. PMID: 3043868

3. Joshi H.B., Stainthorpe A., MacDonagh R.P., Keeley F.X. Jr, Timoney A.G., Barry M.J. Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol. 2003;169(3):1065-1069; discussion 1069. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000048980.33855.90

4. Shah M., Pillai .S, Chawla A., de la Rosette J.J.M.C.H., Laguna P., Jayadeva Reddy S., Taori R., Hegde P., Mummalaneni S. A randomized trial investigating clinical outcomes and stent-related symptoms after placement of a complete intra-ureteric stent on a string versus conventional stent placement. BJU Int. 2022;129(3):373-379. DOI: 10.1111/bju.15540

5. Contreras P., Frascheri M.F., Bonanno N., Butori S., Blas L., Ameri C. MP65-02 Stent syndrome. Does the diameter matter? Results of a prospective trial. J Urol. 2021;206(Supplement 3):e1119. DOI:10.1097/JU.0000000000002105.02

6. Davenport K., Kumar V., Collins J., Melotti R., Timoney A.G., Keeley F.X. Jr. New ureteral stent design does not improve patient quality of life: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol. 2011;185(1):175-178. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.089

7. Krambeck A.E., Walsh R.S., Denstedt J.D., Preminger G.M., Li J., Evans J.C., Lingeman J.E. Lexington Trial Study Group. A novel drug eluting ureteral stent: a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a ketorolac loaded ureteral stent. J Urol. 2010;183(3):1037-1042. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.035

8. Gupta M., Patel T., Xavier K., Maruffo F., Lehman D., Walsh R., Landman J. Prospective randomized evaluation of periureteral botulinum toxin type A injection for ureteral stent pain reduction. J Urol. 2010;183(2):598-602. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.021

9. Pecoraro A., Peretti D., Tian Z., Aimar R., Niculescu G., Alleva G., Piana A., Granato S., Sica M., Amparore D., Checcucci E., Manfredi M., Karakiewicz P., Fiori C., Porpiglia F. Treatment of Ureteral Stent-Related Symptoms. Urol Int. 2023;107(3):288-303. DOI: 10.1159/000518387

10. Yakoubi R., Lemdani M., Monga M., Villers A., Koenig P. Is there a role for α-blockers in ureteral stent related symptoms? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2011;186(3):928-934. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.061

11. Bhattar R., Tomar V., Yadav S.S., Dhakad D.S. Comparison of safety and efficacy of silodosin, solifenacin, tadalafil and their combinations in the treatment of double-J stent-related lower urinary system symptoms: A prospective randomized trial. Turk J Urol. 2018;44(3):228-238. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2018.50328


Review

For citations:


Mamaev I.E., Saypulaev G.Sh., Dolomanov K.A., Glinin K.I., Kotov S.V. Ureteral stent and temporary disability. Urology Herald. 2025;13(4):25-30. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2025-13-4-25-30

Views: 7


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2308-6424 (Online)