The UPJO is a common anomaly, especially encountered in pediatric urology, which is traditionally treated by open pyeloplasty and the most common method is the Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty, performed via a retroperitoneal approach by a flank incision. According to the original approach, insertion of stent in not necessary in this procedure except for complicated cases or doubtful anastomosis (
1). In recent decades and with the introduction of new stents, such as the DJ stents, internal drainage has become popular as a result of the means of anastomosis support, lowering the risk of extravasation and urinoma formation, ensuring urinary drainage, maintain ureteral caliber and preventing the obstruction due to anastomotic site edema (
7). Recently, and especially by promotion of minimally invasive methods and laparoscopic repair of UPJO, an ongoing debate is seen regarding the pros and cons of internal drainage in UPJO repair. Stents associated symptoms, such as dysuria, frequency, flank pain, hematuria, are commonly reported, even with short term placemat of urethral catheters, that may be so severe in selected cases that they even interfere with daily activities and impair the quality of life (
8). Joshi et al. reported these bothering urinary complains in 78% of cases with ureteral stent (
9). Among these patients, 80% experienced voiding or flank pain, 32% sexual impairment and 58% the negative effects on normal life (
9). Potential catheter related complications include catheter dislocation or migration that may cause stent dysfunction and even obstructive uropathy, retained fragments, stone formation on the foreign body, exposure of upper system to high pressure during voiding and an artificial reflux uropathy, flank pain and an increased rate of catheter related urinary infections (
7,
10,
11). The need for readmission and general anesthesia occurs, especially in children. Several attempts have been done to prevent readmission and repeated general anesthesia for catheter removal, and unfortunately they failed (
12,
13). In our study comparing two techniques of pyeloplasty with or without internal drainage, there was no significant difference between groups, concerning extravasation and anastomosis complications, such as leakage, stenosis, urinoma formation, evidence of obstruction at postoperative IVP or DTPA scan. However, a significant incidence of catheter related symptoms, such as irritative urinary symptoms and flank pain was reported. Similar studies, such as Kumar (
8) or Nguyen et al. (
14), also reported almost the same results. In a case series of non-intubated pyeloplasty by Nguyen et al. ureteral stent was not recommended for uncomplicated cases (
14). Kumar et al. also concluded that stentless pyeloplasty may be a feasible option in adults (
8).
In conclusion, pyeloplasty with proper spatulation, hemostasis and a watertight anastomosis is the mainstay of a successful pyeloplasty and there may be no significant benefit for urethral stenting, especially in non-complicated cases.