Comparison of Stent-Related Symptoms: Regular Double J Stent vs. Comfi J Stent

Overview

A prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial conducted at a single center to compare stent related symptoms between two different stents using Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) scores , Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores.

Ureteral stents are widely used in urology following retrograde intrarenal surgeries and ureteric lithotripsy and other endourological procedures. However, their use is associated with significant discomfort, infections, and reduced quality of life (QoL). Over time, different materials and designs have been developed to improve stent performance and reduce complications. This study aims to compare the stent-related symptoms (SRS) of two types of ureteral stents: the regular Double J stent and the Comfi J stent. Objectives of the study- 1. Compare Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) scores between the two stents. 2. Compare Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores. 3. Assess complications associated with each stent. 4. Evaluate the difficulty of stent insertion. Study Design \& Methods: A prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial conducted at a single center. Sample Size: 100 patients undergoing retrograde intrarenal surgery, ureteroscopic lithotripsy Randomization: Intraoperative, using a computer-generated sequence, block randomization Assessments: USSQ and VAS scores at post-operative days (POD) 1, 7, and 14. Statistical Analysis: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software with a significance threshold of p \< 0.05. Expected Outcomes: Determining whether the Comfi J stent reduces pain, urinary symptoms, and other complications compared to the regular Double J stent. Evaluating if changes in design/material can improve patient QoL. Ethical Considerations: Institutional ethics approval and informed consent from all participants. Confidentiality ensured, with voluntary participation. This study aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for improving ureteral stent tolerability and reducing patient morbidity

Conditions

Interventions

Eligibility

Locations (1)

Outcomes

Central Contacts