ReviewWorld journal of urology2026
Choosing the optimal ureteral stent design, size, and material in different situations: a review from the European association of urology endourology.
Review in World journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Stone location may separate the benefit and harm of 4.7Fr ureteral stents.World journal of urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUreteral stents are widely used to maintain upper urinary tract drainage in diverse clinical scenarios; however, guidance on selecting the optimal stent configuration remains limited. This narrative review evaluates the clinical relevance of ureteral stent design, size, material composition, and surface coating technologies to support evidence-based device selection in routine practice.
methodsA focused narrative literature review was conducted using the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, supplemented by cross-referencing key publications. Studies addressing the structural characteristics, biomaterial properties, and coating technologies of ureteral stents, as well as their clinical implications, were appraised thematically.
resultsConventional double-J stents remain the most used configuration. However, several modifications-including loop-tail, extraction-string, magnetic-tip, and multilength designs-have been introduced to improve positioning accuracy and patient comfort. Alternative stent types, such as mono-J, suture, anti-reflux, grooved, and tumor stents, offer scenario-specific advantages in selected indications. Material composition, particularly silicone and polyurethane-based platforms, significantly influences flexibility, handling characteristics, resistance to encrustation, and patient tolerance. Surface engineering strategies-including lubricating, antimicrobial, anti-fouling, and drug-eluting coatings-aim to reduce infection, biofilm formation, and stent-related symptoms, although clinical evidence remains heterogeneous. Structural parameters such as diameter and length are key determinants of symptom burden and quality of life.
conclusionOptimal ureteral stent selection requires individualized evaluation of device design, material properties, size, and coating technologies. No single stent configuration demonstrates universal superiority across all clinical scenarios; therefore, indication-specific selection remains essential to optimize drainage efficiency and minimize complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42661002What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.