Optimal Timing for Removal of the Double-J Stent After Kidney Transplantation

Routine Ureteral Stenting in Kidney Transplant Reduces Postoperative Hydronephrosis and Percutaneous Ureteral Interventions: A Single-Center Experience

OBJECTIVES

The effect of routine ureteral stenting on postoperative hydronephrosis and percutaneous ureteral intervention in kidney transplant remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of routine ureteral stenting on hydronephrosis and percutaneous ureteral intervention and the cost benefit of ureteral stenting in kidney transplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent kidney transplant at a tertiary institution between 2005 and 2021. We adopted a ureteral stentingprotocol in2017, anda comparisonwas performed with previous patients without stents.

RESULTS

In total, 539 patients underwent kidney transplant(271 with stents [51.3%], 268 without stents [49.7%]). Hydronephrosis was detected in 16 cases (5.9%) and 30 cases (11.2%) of groups with and without stents,respectively (P = .041). Among patients with hydronephrosis, the number of patients who underwent percutaneous ureteral intervention was significantly lower in the stent group than in the nostent group (1 [6.25%] vs 10 [33.33%]; P= .014).Twenty patients (3.71%) experienced major urologic complications (19 [7.1%] in the no-stent group, and 1 [0.4%] in the stent group; P = .001). No significant differences between the groups were shown in the incidence of urinary tract infections within 3 months of transplant (24 [8.9%] vs 22 [8.2%]; P = .846). No differences were shown between the groups in ureterovesical anastomosis time (24.4 vs 24.03 min; P = .699) or 1-year graft survival (97% vs 97.8%; P = .803). The healthcare cost was significantly lower in the stent group than in the no-stent group by $1702.05 ($15000.89 vs $16702.95; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine ureteral stenting in kidney transplant significantly decreased the incidence of postoperative hydronephrosis and percutaneous ureteral intervention. Stenting did notlead to increased urinary tract infections and was cost-effective.

Association Between the Placement of a Double-J Catheter and the Risk of Urinary Tract Infection in Renal Transplantation Recipients: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 1038 Patients

BACKGROUND

The incidence of urinary complications in transplantation is 2% to 20%, which can be decreased with the use of a double-J catheter. The objective of this study was to determine the association between the use of the catheter and the probability of urinary tract infection (UTI).

METHODS

We studied a retrospective cohort of 1038 patients divided into 2 groups: those treated with vs without a double-J catheter. Perioperative factors related to catheter use were analyzed. Second, whether the use of the catheter was associated with fewer other urinary complications was analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the whole sample, 72 patients were eliminated from the study, and 358 (37%) received a double-J catheter. UTIs occurred in 190 patients (19.6%), of whom a greater proportion received a catheter: 88 of 358 (24.6%) vs 102 of 608 (16.8%) (odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.22; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

The placement of a double-J catheter during transplant is associated with a higher proportion of UTIs, increasing their severity and the cost of care, without having a clear effect on other types of urinary complications.

The impact of prophylactic ureteral stenting during kidney transplantation on postoperative surgical outcomes

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of prophylactic ureteric stenting during kidney transplantation (KT).

Methods

The authors retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent KT between June 2016 and June 2019. The prophylactic ureteral stenting group (double-J [DJ]) and no-stent group (no-DJ) were compared with respect to the clinical data and surgical outcomes.

Results

A total of 42 patients underwent KT; 17 patients were classified into the DJ group and 25 patients into the no-DJ group. Antithymocyte globulin induction and donor-specific antibody positivity were significantly higher in the DJ group. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI). The time to postoperative UTI was significantly shorter in the DJ group than in the no-DJ group (33.5±7.8 vs. 105.3±71.6 days, P=0.013). The development of postoperative BK viremia was significantly higher in the no-DJ group (0.0% vs. 16.0%, P=0.035). Urologic complications were significantly higher in the no-DJ group (0.0% vs. 16.0%, P=0.035). In the no-DJ group, urologic complications occurred in four patients ureteroneocystostomy stenosis in three patients and ureteroneocystostomy leakage in one patient. Percutaneous ureteral interventions were performed for all patients using percutaneous nephrostomy and reno-uretero-vesical stenting. However, there were no postoperative urologic complications in the DJ group.

Conclusions

Prophylactic ureteric stenting during KT may be safe and feasible without significantly increasing the incidence of UTI and BK viremia. Additionally, prophylactic ureteric stenting may reduce urologic complications after KT.

Update on the Management of Urological Problems Following Kidney Transplantation

Urological problems in kidney transplant recipients are not limited only to posttransplantation urological complications. These problems are a cause of significant patient mortality and morbidity that have wide-ranging effects on graft survival throughout the entire life of the graft. Ultimately, the transplant comprises a major portion of the urinary system; therefore, the transplant team should be prepared for foreseeable and unforeseeable urological problems in the short and long terms. These mainly include postoperative urological complications (urine leakage, ureteral stenosis, and vesicoureteral reflux), bladder outlet obstruction, and graft urolithiasis. In recent years, significant advances have been made in the management of urological complications, especially due to advances in endourologic interventions. The aim of this review is to summarize the management of urological problems after kidney transplantation in the context of the current literature.

Risk Factors for Anastomosis Leakage After Kidney Transplantation

Purpose

Kidney transplantation is one of the best treatment options for end-stage renal disease with an incidence of urologic complications of 2.5 to 30%. One of the most serious and frequent urological complications is urinary leakage from ureteroneocystostomy anastomosis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate risk factors of urinary leakage from ureteroneocystostomy anastomosis after kidney transplantation.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective study was performed on patients who received kidney transplantation and were diagnosed with urinary leakage thereafter based on renal scan or drain creatinine per serum creatinine compared with patients in control group. Risk factor assessment was based on inpatient and outpatient information from hospital database.

Results

From 459 patients who received kidney transplantation in 2016-2018, there were 20 patients who were diagnosed with urinary leakage after they underwent ureteroneocystostomy anastomosis. The significant risk factors for anastomosis leakage were size of suture materials and duration of ureteral stent insertion. No statistically significant difference in other factors such as underlying disease, surgical technique or duration of urinary catheter was found. About overall urological complication, gender and body mass index significantly affected the outcome.

Conclusion

The rate of urinary leakage complications was found to be about 4.36%. The risk factors of overall complication comprised gender and body mass index. Although a lot of previous studies revealed many risk factors that could affect urinary leakage, size of suture materials and duration of ureteral stent insertion were the significant risk factors in our study. Proper consideration should be given to the size of suture materials and optimal duration of ureteral stent.

Timing of Ureteric Stent Removal and Occurrence of Urological Complications after Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Implanting a ureteric stent during ureteroneocystostomy reduces the risk of leakage and ureteral stenosis after kidney transplantation (KTx), but it may also predispose to urinary tract infections (UTIs). The aim of this study is to determine the optimal timing for ureteric stent removal after KTx. Searches were performed in EMBASE, MEDLINE Ovid, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (until November 2017). For this systematic review, all aspects of the Cochrane Handbook for Interventional Systematic Reviews were followed and it was written based on the PRISMA-statement. Articles discussing JJ-stents (double-J stents) and their time of removal in relation to outcomes, UTIs, urinary leakage, ureteral stenosis or reintervention were included. One-thousand-and-forty-three articles were identified, of which fourteen articles (three randomised controlled trials, nine retrospective cohort studies, and two prospective cohort studies) were included (describing in total n = 3612 patients). Meta-analysis using random effect models showed a significant reduction of UTIs when stents were removed earlier than three weeks (OR 0.49, CI 95%, 0.33 to 0.75, p = 0.0009). Regarding incidence of urinary leakage, there was no significant difference between early (<3 weeks) and late stent removal (>3 weeks) (OR 0.60, CI 95%, 0.29 to 1.23, p = 0.16). Based on our results, earlier stent removal (<3 weeks) was associated with a decreased incidence of UTIs and did not show a higher incidence of urinary leakage compared to later removal (>3 weeks). We recommend that the routine removal of ureteric stents implanted during KTx should be performed around three weeks post-operatively.

Does early removal of double J stents reduce urinary infection in living donor renal transplantation?

INTRODUCTION

Prophylactic use of double J (DJ) stents in recipients is highly accepted in renal transplantation. In this study, the association between the frequency of urologic complications (UC) and urinary tract infections (UTI), and the early or late removal of DJ stents was investigated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 116 live-donor renal transplant patients were included in the study during a 4-year period, with a mean follow-up of 29.2 ±15.3 months. In all, DJ stents were used. All patients were clinically monitored for graft function by assessment of the complete blood count, renal biochemistry, urine analysis and blood drug level according to our follow-up protocol.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the time of their stent removal: group I (n = 44), removal within the first 14 days; and group II (n = 72), removal after 14 days. No urinary leaks were detected in either of the groups. Three patients suffered from anastomotic stricture (group I, n = 1; group II, n = 2). The rates of UTI were similar in groups I and II (13.6% vs. 16.6%, respectively, p = 0.79). The rate of UTI in women was found to be 3.8 times higher than in men.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study demonstrated that DJ stent removal within 14 days did not reduce the risk of UTI when compared to stent removal after 14 days. Similar effects on complication rates for ureteral stenting for these 2 removal periods were observed.