Percuflex ureteral stent portfolio
Up to 365-day indwell time Percuflex material quality stent: a long history of innovation in ureteral stent science.*1
Ureteral stent material science has evolved over the years from soft silicone stents to the adoption of polyurethane.2 Boston Scientific Research & Development (R&D) developed a new type of material and coating specifically designed to be biocompatible, durable, easy to place and using the minimum material quantity while promoting patient tolerance: the patented Percuflex™ material first and the HydroPlus™ Coating later.1,3
Since the introduction of the Percuflex stents in 1983,1 their adoption increased across the globe with several variants introduced to address specific needs of users and patients.1 In 2020 Boston Scientific provided healthcare professionals and patients with a new Percuflex layer technology:1 the Tria™ PercuShield™ engineered ureteral stent minimizes the adherence of calcium and magnesium salts on the stent surfaces** and is designed to promote greater patient tolerability.1
Unlike any other.1 Made with PercuShield technology designed to provide protection against the accumulation of both Ca and Mg salts during indwell.**1
Percuflex PlusTM Ureteral Stent
Firm enough to place under difficult conditions.1,3,4-8 Firm Percuflex Stent with HydroPlus Coating designed for ease of placement.1,3,4,9,10
The soft stent designed to conform.1,11 Soft Percuflex Stent with HydroPlus Coating available in both fixed and variable length stents.
Also with SureDrive TM steerable option for Percuflex Plus, Contour and Contour VL Ureteral Stents
While it secures the positioner tip to the compatible stent, the ergonomic SureDrive positioner handle is designed to facilitate the navigation into the ureter and the single-handed release mechanism provides you with a free hand.1 Each stent has its own corresponding SureDrive positioner size.1
A dual durometer stent with a proprietary loop design.12 Dual Duromete Percuflex Stent with HydroPlus Coating featuring a unique bladder loop design.1,10
PolarisTM Ultra Ureteral Stent
A dual durometer stent designed for minimal bladder irritation.1,11,13,14 Dual Durometer Percuflex Stent with HydroPlus Coating featuring a distinct soft Nautilus™ Bladder Coil.
Firm Percuflex material designed for ease of placement.1,3,9,10 Designed with high retention coil strength to help maintain pigtail shape and reduce the chance of stent migration.1,3,9,10
*Biocompatible material designed for up to a 365‐day indwelling time. Where long‐term use is indicated, it is recommended that indwelling time for stent (with retrieval line removed) not exceed 365 days. This stent should be evaluated by the physician on or before 90days post‐placement.
**Bench test results may not necessarily be indicative of clinical performance. Study methodology: Testing was performed by an independent third‐party using the in‐vitro BEST™ method to evaluate salt adhesion of the ureteral stents. A total of 30 samples from eachureteral stent family were tested in both a sterile Artificial Urine Model and a Bacterial Infection Model (n=15 in each model) for 2 weeks. Proteus mirabilis was used as the microbial challenge in the Bacterial Infection Model due to its known urease production andinvolvement in struvite formation.
1. Data on File with Boston Scientific.
2. Mosayyebi A, Manes C, Carugo D, Somani BK. Advances in Ureteral Stent Design and Materials. Current Urology Reports. 19(35):1-9, 2018.
3. Mardis HK, Kroeger RM, Morton JJ, et al. Comparative evaluation of materials used for internal ureteral stents. J Endourol. 1993 Apr;7(2):105-15.
4. Joshi HB, Chitale SV, Nagarajan M, et al. A Prospective single‐blind comparison of ureteral stents composed of firm and soft polymer. J Urol. 2005;174:2303–6.
5. Leslie SW, Sajjad H. Double J placement methods comparative analysis. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; June 28, 2020.
6. Denstedt JD, Wollin TA, Reid G. Biomaterials used in urology: Current issues of biocompatibility, infection, and encrustation. J Endourol. 1998 Dec;12(6):493‐500.
7. Saltzman B. Ureteral Stents Indications, Variations, and Complications. Urol Clin North Am . 1988 Aug;15(3):481‐91.
8. Beysens M, Tailly TO. Ureteral stents in urolithiasis. Asian J Urol. 2018 Oct;5(4):274‐86.
9. Liatsikos E, Kallidonis P, Karnabatidis D, Petsas T. (2012) Long‐term Stenting of the Ureter In Smith AD, Badlani GH, Preminger GM, Kavoussi LR (Eds.), Smith’s Textbook of Endourology (pp. 772‐782). New York, NY: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
10. Mosayyebi A, Vijayakumar A, Yue QY, et al. Engineering solutions to ureteral stents: material, coating and design. Cent European J Urol. 2017;70(3):270‐4.
11. Lee JN, Kim BS. Comparison of efficacy and bladder irritation symptoms among three different ureteral stents: a double‐blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Scand J Urol. 2015 Jun;49(3):237‐41.
12. Taguchi M, Inoue T, Muguruma K, et al. Impact of loop‐tail ureteral stents on ureteral stent‐related symptoms immediately after ureteroscopic lithotripsy: comparison with pigtail ureteral stents. Investig Clin Urol 2017;58:440‐446.
13. Al‐Bareeq R, Denstedt JD. Stents and Stenting. In: Rao NP, Preminger GM, Kavanagh JP ed. Urinary Tract Stone Disease. London: Springer‐ Verlag;2010;(46):543‐51.
14. Park HK, Paick SH, Kim HG, et al. The impact of ureteral stent type on patient symptoms as determined by the ureteral stent symptom questionnaire: A prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Endourol. 2015 Mar;29(3):367‐71.