1.1 The case for adopting Memokath‑051 for treating ureteric obstruction is partially supported by the evidence. The evidence is limited but suggests that in selected cases, Memokath‑051 is effective at relieving ureteric obstruction and improving quality of life. When inserted by trained clinicians (see section 4.8) and in appropriate patients (see section 1.2), Memokath‑051 is associated with equivalent success rates and a better patient experience compared with double‑J stents. Using Memokath‑051 may also reduce the number of stent replacements needed compared with using double‑J stents.
1.2 Memokath‑051 stents should be considered as an option in patients with:
malignant ureteric obstruction and anticipated medium- or long-term survival after adjunctive therapy
benign ureteric obstruction who cannot have or do not want reconstructive surgery or
ureteric obstruction of any kind who cannot have or do not want a double‑J stent, or for whom repeat procedures are a particularly high risk.
1.3 The cost consequences of adopting Memokath‑051 are uncertain. However, when used in appropriate patients and by clinicians trained in its use, it may be cost neutral or cost saving compared with standard treatment. Potential cost savings mainly come from fewer repeat procedures with Memokath‑051.