Routine insertion of ureteral stent in live-donor renal transplantation: is it worthwhile?

Routine intraoperative ureteric stenting for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Major urological complications (MUCs) after kidney transplantation contribute to patient morbidity and compromise graft function. The majority arise from vesicoureteric anastomosis and present early after transplantation. Ureteric stents have been successfully used to treat such complications. A number of centres have adopted a policy of universal prophylactic stenting at the time of graft implantation to reduce the incidence of urine leaks and ureteric stenosis. Stents are associated with specific complications, and some centres advocate a policy of only stenting selected anastomoses. This is an update of our review, first published in 2005 and last updated in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the benefits and harms of routine ureteric stenting to prevent MUCs in kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register (up to 19 June 2024) using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Our meta-analysis included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs designed to examine the impact of using stents for kidney transplant recipients. We aimed to include studies regardless of the type of graft, the technique of ureteric implantation, or the patient group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies (1960 patients) were identified. One study was deemed to be at low risk of bias across all domains. The remaining 11 studies were of low or medium quality, with a high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Universal prophylactic ureteric stenting versus control probably reduces major urological complications (11 studies: 1834 participants: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.55; P < 0.0001; I2 = 16%; moderate certainty evidence; number needed to treat (17)); this benefit was confirmed in the only study deemed to be at low risk of bias across all domains. This benefit was also seen for the individual components of urine leak and ureteric obstruction. Universal prophylactic ureteric stent insertion reduces the risk of MUC in the subgroup of studies with short duration (≤ 14 days) of stenting (2 studies, 480 participants: RR 0.39, 95% CI CI 0.21 to 0.72; P = 0.003; I2 = 0%) and where stenting was continued for > 14 days (8 studies, 124 participants: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.61; P = 0.004; I2 = 29%). It is uncertain whether stenting has an impact on the development of urinary tract infection (UTI) (10 studies, 1726 participants: RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.80; P = 0.07; I² = 60%; very low certainty evidence due to risk of bias, heterogeneity and imprecision). Subgroup analysis showed that the risk of UTI did not increase if short-duration stenting was used (9 days) and that there was no impact on UTI risk when the prophylactic antibiotic regime co-trimoxazole 480 mg/day was used. Stents appear generally well tolerated, although studies using longer stents (≥ 20 cm) for longer periods (> 6 weeks) had more problems with encrustation and migration. There was no evidence that the presence of a stent resulted in recurrent or severe haematuria (8 studies, 1546 participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.00; P = 0.79; I2 = 33%). The impact of stents on graft and patient survival and other stent-related complications remains unclear as these outcomes were either poorly reported or not reported at all.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Routine prophylactic stenting probably reduces the incidence of MUCs, even when the duration of stenting is short (≤ 14 days). Further high-quality studies are required to assess optimal stent duration. Studies comparing selective stenting and universal prophylactic stenting, whilst difficult to design and analyse, would address the unresolved quality of life and economic issues.

Comparative study between the use of double J ureteric stents vs bander ureteric stents during robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with intra corporeal ileal conduit urinary diversion

Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is fast becoming the standard of care with comparable oncological outcomes to open surgery for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Ileal conduit is by far the most popular means of urinary diversion following a cystectomy. Use of stents is common practice to reduce uretero-enteric anastomosis-related complications. In the current study, practice was changed from the use of Double J (DJ) stents to bander stent intraoperatively. The potential advantages of using bander stent are avoiding second surgery for stent removal and easier change under local anaesthetic in the interventional radiology department. To compare the incidence of blocked, slipped stents and rate of ureteroileal anastomotic stricture after RARC with intracorporeal ileal conduit between practices of using DJ stents and bander stents. Retrospective analysis of all the patients undergoing Robotic radical cystectomy and intracorporeal ileal conduit between June 2014 and August 2023 was done. Initially, all intracorporeal anastomosis were covered with DJ stents. The practice was changed to cover the anastomosis with bander stent in November 2020. Number of patients needing re-surgery for blocked, slipped stents and ureteroileal anastomotic stricture were analyzed and compared using Chi-square analysis and Fisher's exact test (P < 0.05). A total of 168 patients underwent RARC with intracorporeal ileal conduit between June 2014 and August 2023 of which 128 patents were diverted with DJ stents and 40 with bander stent. The mean age and the patient demographics between the two groups were comparable. Of the 128 patients who were diverted with DJ stents, 6 (4.7%) had blocked stents, 3 (2.3%) had slipped stents, and 3 (2.3%) developed ureteroileal stricture needing readmission and urgent invasive intervention to exchange the stent or nephrostomy tube, whereas only 1 (2.5%) of the 40 patients with bander stent had blocked stent which was changed under local anaesthetic in the interventional radiology suite with no slipped stents reported and 2 (5%) had ureteroileal stricture who needed nephrostomies. Intraoperative ureteric stenting using bander stent has the potential to reduce the incidence of stent-related complications, such as blockage, slippage, and ureteroileal anastomotic stricture, following RARC with intracorporeal ileal conduit urinary diversion. Additionally, managing bander stent-related complications is less invasive with lower rate of readmission postoperatively compared to managing DJ stent-related ones.

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.

Prevalence and risk factors of urinary tract infection in kidney recipients: a meta-analysis study

BACKGROUND

A kidney recipient's urinary tract infection (UTI) can result in infectious problems and be a risk factor for less successful transplant outcomes. UTI risk factors are still controversial. The present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of UTI and its association with risk factors in kidney recipients.

METHOD

Twenty-six papers published between 2005 and 2022 were retrieved using keywords and searching Medlib, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and other databases. If possible, the pooled prevalence of UTI in kidney recipients and odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval for each risk factor were calculated. The data were analyzed using the random effects model in R and Stata 14.

RESULTS

The total sample size was 72,600, with an average age of 48.7 years. The pooled prevalence of UTI was 35% (95% CI, 30-40%). The estimated risk factors for UTI were female (OR = 3.13; 95%CI: 2.35-4.17), older age (OR = 1.03; 95%CI: 1-1.05), history of UTI (OR = 1.31; 95%CI) CI: 1.05-1.63), receiving a kidney from a deceased donor (OR = 1.59; 95%CI: 1.23-2.35), long-term use of an indwelling catheter (OR = 3.03; 95%CI: 1.59-6.59), a ureteral stent (OR = 1.54; 95%CI: 1.16-2.06), diabetes (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 0.97-1.41), hypertension (OR = 1.6; 95%CI: 1.26-2.28), acute rejection process (OR = 2.22; 95%CI: 1.45-3.4), and abnormal urinary tract anatomy (OR = 2.87; 95%CI 1.44-5.74).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis revealed that UTIs are a significant problem in kidney recipients. Factors such as female sex, old age, history of UTIs, deceased donor, long-term use of an indwelling catheter, diabetes, acute rejection process, use of ureteral stent, abnormal urinary tract anatomy, and hypertension were related to an increased risk of UTIs in kidney recipients.

Influence of double J stent in the complications of ureterovesical anastomosis during kidney transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Complications arising from ureterovesical anastomosis in kidney transplantation have an important influence on the success of the procedure. The most serious and frequent complications are fistula and stenosis of the ureterovesical junction. The placement of double J stents in anastomosis is currently recommended to reduce these complications.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to evaluate whether the placement of a DJ stent affects complications of anastomosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 697 patients treated with cadaveric donor renal transplant in our center from 1999 to 2018 was performed. Results were compared according to double J stent placement and the surgical technique employed for anastomosis.

RESULTS

Transplantation was performed without DJ placement in 51.7% of the patients, compared to 48.3% who were treated with DJ stent placement. The most commonly used technique was Lich-Gregoir. Ureterovesical fistula occurred in 5% of cases, and ureterovesical stenosis in 4.2%. DJ stent behaved as a protective factor for ureterovesical fistula but did not significantly influence the development of stenosis. The Taguchi technique greatly increased the risk of developing both ureterovesical fistula and stenosis. The incidence of stenosis and fistula was significantly higher when the Taguchi technique was combined with no DJ stent placement.

CONCLUSION

DJ stent placement acts as a protective factor for ureterovesical stenosis complications. The results of our study seem to agree with current literature.

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.

Recommendations of the AFU Infectious Diseases Committee on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of infections of endo-ureteral equipment

INTRODUCTION

No recent national guidelines exist regarding the management of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in the presence of ureteral stent. This situation could lead to discrepancies in clinical management and less opportunity for a favorable patient's outcome.

METHODS

All available data published on Medline® between 1998 and 2018 were systematically searched and reviewed. All papers assessing adult patients carrying ureteral stent were included for analysis. After studies critical analysis, national guidelines for clinical management were elaborated in order to answer clinical questions.

RESULTS

A total of 451 articles were identified, of which 58 have been included. The prevalence of urinary tract infections in the presence of ureteral stent remains unknown. After 3 months, all endo-ureteral devices were colonized on microbiological study. These patients also presented a positive urine culture in 25 to 70% of the cases, often polymicrobial. Staphylococci, E. coli, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, Enterococcus and Candida were the commonest micro-organisms responsible for urinary colonization or infection. The risk of UTI on endo-ureteral devices seemed higher the longer it stayed implanted. There is no justification in the literature to recommend a systematic change of endo-ureteral devices following a urinary tract infection.

DISCUSSION

The existing literature is rich but of poor methodological quality, and therefore does not allow to draw robust conclusions. The greatest difficulty faced in this work was to accurately differentiate urinary colonizations from true infections, including clinical symptoms and not only microbiological results.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines propose a standardized management of such common clinical situations. Well-designed studies are needed to upgrade the level of evidence of these guidelines.

Ureteric Trauma following Stent Removal in Kidney Transplant Recipient: A Unique Case of Prolonged Morbidity

A 52-year-old African-American male patient with end-stage renal disease due to hypertension underwent deceased donor kidney transplant procedure with no immediate complications. The postprocedure complications, interventions, and course were abstracted by chart review. The ureteric stent was removed with flexible cystoscopy on postoperative day (POD) 24. 24 hours later, the patient presented with abdominal pain and inability to urinate. An urgent ultrasound and noncontrast CT scan showed grade 4 hydronephrosis of the transplanted kidney. A percutaneous nephrostomy stent was placed for urinary diversion. A large ureteric hematoma filling the lumen of the mid to distal ureter was identified on the nephrostogram and was evacuated. A follow-up nephrostogram on POD 44 revealed a distal ureter stricture and persistent well-formed midureter filling defect. A repeat nephrostogram performed at POD 72 was done with stricture dilatation, internalization of stents, and removal of a percutaneous nephrostomy tube. The patient was maintained on antibiotics for UTI prophylaxis throughout the course.

Results of a previously unreported extravesical ureteroneocystostomy technique without ureteral stenting in 500 consecutive kidney transplant recipients

Urologic complications can still occur following kidney transplantation, sometimes requiring multiple radiological and/or surgical procedures to fully correct the problem. Previously proposed extravesical ureteral reimplantation techniques still carry non-negligible risks of the patient developing urologic complications. About 10 years ago, a new set of modifications to the Lich-Gregoir technique was developed at our center, with the goal of further minimizing the occurrence of urologic complications, and without the need for initial ureteral stent placement. It was believed that an improvement in the surgical technique to minimize the risk of developing urologic complications was possible without the need for stent placement at the time of transplant. In this report, we describe the advantages of this technique (i.e., mobilized bladder, longer spatulation of the ureter, inclusion of bladder mucosa with detrusor muscle layer in the ureteral anastomosis, and use of a right angle clamp in the ureteral orifice to ensure that it does not become stenosed). We also retrospectively report our experience in using this technique among 500 consecutive (prospectively followed) kidney transplant recipients transplanted at our center since 2014. During the first 12mo post-transplant, only 1.4%(7/500) of patients developed a urologic complication; additionally, only 1.0%(5/500) required surgical repair of their original ureteroneocystostomy. Five patients(1.0%) developed a urinary leak, with 3/5 having distal ureteral necrosis, and 1/5 subsequently developing a ureteral stricture. Two other patients developed ureteral stenosis, one due to stricture and one due to ureteral stones. These overall results are excellent when compared with other reports in the literature, especially those in which routine stenting was performed. In summary, we believe that the advantages in using this modified extravesical ureteroneocystostomy technique clearly help in lowering the early post-transplant risk of developing urologic complications. Importantly, these results were achieved without the need for ureteral stent placement at the time of transplant.

Egyptian clinical practice guideline for kidney transplantation

Objective: To present the first Egyptian clinical practice guideline for kidney transplantation (KT).

Methods: A panel of multidisciplinary subspecialties related to KT prepared this document. The sources of information included updates of six international guidelines, and review of several relevant international and Egyptian publications. All statements were graded according to the strength of clinical practice recommendation and the level of evidence. All recommendations were discussed by the panel members who represented most of the licensed Egyptian centres practicing KT.

Results: Recommendations were given on preparation, surgical techniques and surgical complications of both donors and recipients. A special emphasis was made on the recipient’s journey with immunosuppression. It starts with setting the scene by covering the donor and recipient evaluations, medicolegal requirements, recipient’s protective vaccines, and risk assessment. It spans desensitisation and induction strategies to surgical approach and potential complications, options of maintenance immunosuppression, updated treatment of acute rejection and chemoprophylactic protocols. It ends with monitoring for potential complications of the recipient’s suppressed immunity and the short- and long-term complications of immunosuppressive drugs. It highlights the importance of individualisation of immunosuppression strategies consistent with pre-KT risk assessment. It emphasises the all-important role of anti-human leucocyte antigen antibodies, particularly the donor-specific antibodies (DSAs), in acute and chronic rejection, and eventual graft and patient survival. It addresses the place of DSAs across the recipient’s journey with his/her gift of life.

Conclusion: This guideline introduces the first proposed standard of good clinical practice in the field of KT in Egypt.

Abbreviations: Ab: antibody; ABMR: Ab-mediated rejection; ABO: ABO blood groups; BKV: BK polyomavirus; BMI: body mass index; BTS: British Transplantation Society; CAN: chronic allograft nephropathy; CDC: complement-dependent cytotoxicity; CKD: chronic kidney disease; CMV: cytomegalovirus; CNI: calcineurin inhibitor; CPRA: Calculated Panel Reactive Antibodies; (dn)DSA: (de novo) donor-specific antibodies; ECG: electrocardiogram; ESWL: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy; FCM: flow cytometry; GBM: glomerular basement membrane; GN: glomerulonephritis; HIV: human immunodeficiency virus; HLA: human leucocyte antigen; HPV: human papilloma virus; IL2-RA: interleukin-2 receptor antagonist; IVIg: intravenous immunoglobulin; KT(C)(R): kidney transplantation/transplant (candidate) (recipient); (L)(O)LDN: (laparoscopic) (open) live-donor nephrectomy; MBD: metabolic bone disease; MCS: Mean channel shift (in FCM-XM); MFI: mean fluorescence intensity; MMF: mycophenolate mofetil; mTOR(i): mammalian target of rapamycin (inhibitor); NG: ‘not graded’; PAP: Papanicolaou smear; PCN: percutaneous nephrostomy; PCNL: percutaneous nephrolithotomy; PKTU: post-KT urolithiasis; PLEX: plasma exchange; PRA: panel reactive antibodies; PSI: proliferation signal inhibitor; PTA: percutaneous transluminal angioplasty; RAS: renal artery stenosis; RAT: renal artery thrombosis;:rATG: rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RIS: Relative MFI Score; RVT: renal vein thrombosis; TB: tuberculosis; TCMR: T-cell-mediated rejection; URS: ureterorenoscopy; (CD)US: (colour Doppler) ultrasonography; VCUG: voiding cystourethrogram; XM: cross match; ZN: Ziehl–Neelsen stain

Recipient and renal allograft survival following living related-donor transplantation: a single center experience

Background

Despite improvements in surgical techniques of renal transplantation, still surgical complications remain a big challenge that might affect the post-transplant recipient and graft outcome. The aim of the current study was to retrospectively assess the surgical complications following living related kidney transplants in our center from 1990 to 2012 and determine their impact on long term recipient and graft survival.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of all live related-donor kidney transplants performed at our tertiary referral center between June 1990 and December 2012. Data regarding recipient demographics, details of surgical techniques, any reported complications and cumulative recipient and graft survival was analyzed.

Results

One hundred and four patients were included in the study whom we had access to their complete hospital records and they didn’t miss follow up. There were 41 surgical complications reported in 37 recipients, prevalence of 35.5%. Vascular and urologic complications were reported in 17(16.3%) and 11 (10.5%) recipients respectively. Lymphocele was post-operatively diagnosed in nine (8.7%) recipients. Recipient survival at 1 year and 5-year were 100% and 97% respectively. Graft survival at 1 year and at 5 years were 96% and 85.5% respectively. Surgical complications mentioned, other than renal artery thrombosis, had no statistically significant impact on the graft and recipient survival.

Conclusion

Although surgical complications post-transplantation are not rare, the resulting morbidity can be minimized by prompt management of complications. In general, the existence of surgical complications did not impact recipient or graft survival.

Urinary tract infection and antibiotic use around ureteral stent insertion for urolithiasis

Urolithiasis is the main indication for a ureteral JJ stent. Our aim was to determine the incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) after a JJ stent for urolithiasis, with an emphasis on antibiotic use. Prospective, multicenter, cohort study over a 4-month period including all of the patients with urolithiasis requiring JJ stent insertion. The clinical and microbiological data and therapeutic information were recorded until removal of the JJ stent. Two hundred twenty-three patients at five French private hospitals were included. A urine culture was performed for 187 patients (84%) prior to insertion of a JJ stent, 36 (19%) of which were positive. One hundred thirty patients (58%) received an antibiotic therapy during surgery: 74 (33%) prophylaxis and 56 (25%) empirical antibiotic therapy, comprising 17 different regimens. The rate of prophylaxis varied according to the center, from 0 to 70%. A total of 208 patients were followed-up until removal of the first stent. The rate of UTIs was 6.3% (13/208); 8.1% of the patients who did not receive a prophylaxis had a UTI versus 1.4% of those who did receive a prophylaxis (p = 0.057). Seven empirical antibiotic regimens were used to treat these 13 patients. Another large panel of antibiotic prescriptions was observed at the time of JJ stent removal. The incidence of a UTI after JJ stent insertion for urolithiasis was 6.3%, in part due to a lack of prophylaxis. An unwarranted diversity of antibiotic use was observed at each step of care.

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.

Routine double-J stenting for live related donor kidney transplant recipients: It doesn't serve the purpose, but does it serve a better purpose?

Purpose

Despite meticulous techniques, surgical complications continue to be problematic in kidney transplant recipients. Role of routine stenting to reduce complications is controversial. In this study, we compare incidence of early urological complications, lymphoceles, urinary tract infections (UTI) and graft function; with or without double-J stenting.

Materials and Methods

All patients who underwent live related donor renal transplantation from February 2014 to February 2016 were included. Transplants prior to February 2015 were without routine stenting; subsequent transplants were with routine stenting. Patients with neurogenic bladder, previously operated bladder and delayed or low urinary output were excluded. Follow-up was for at least three months. Descriptive statistics was performed for all parameters. Chi square test and Fisher's Exact test were used for qualitative variables. For quantitative variables, Mann-Whitney test was used to test median difference and independent samples t-test for mean difference. The p-value ≤0.05 was considered significant.

Results

We analysed 74 patients (34 stented and 40 non-stented). There was no difference in the incidence of urinary leak, anastomotic obstruction, lymphoceles or UTI (p>0.4 for all comparisons). However, mean estimated glomerular filtration rate at sixth day, 14th day, one month and two months were 76.1 vs. 61.5 (p=0.025), 72.1 vs. 56.6 (p=0.005), 79.4 vs. 63.1 (p=0.002) and 82.0 vs. 63.3 (p=0.001) in the stented versus non-stented groups.

Conclusions

Placement of ureteral stent in renal transplant does not significantly affect the incidence of early urinary complications or UTI. However, graft function is significantly better in stented recipients, at least in the short term.

Routine Stenting of Extravesical Ureteroneocystostomy in Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although rare, major urologic complications (MUC) in kidney transplantation can cause significant morbidity, increased cost, and may even lead to graft loss. Ureteric stents are routinely used to prevent MUC, although complications related to their use have been reported. Here, we systematically reviewed the role of routine stenting in preventing MUC in kidney transplantation with extravesical ureteric implantation and performed a meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed for studies on MUC and stents in kidney transplant recipients. Randomized controlled trials were shortlisted for the review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RevMan 5 was used for statistical analysis, and outcome analysis was done with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using random effect model.

RESULTS

Six trials meeting the criteria were identified. Although stent use did not decrease the incidence of urinary leak (odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.14-1.11; P = .08) or obstruction (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.24; P = .11), it was associated with a higher incidence of urinary tract infection (OR, 3.59; 95% CI, 1.33-9.75; P = .01).

CONCLUSION

In the present era of extravesical ureterovesical anastomosis, routine stenting has a limited role in decreasing major urologic complications and may be associated with higher incidence of urinary tract infections.

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

BACKGROUND

Urologic complications (UC) have gradually decreased in recent years after advanced surgical experience. The incidence of urologic complications varies between 0.22% and 30% in different medical studies. There is no routine usage of double-J stenting (DJS) during renal transplantation (RT) in the literature. It is a necessity, and optimal timing for stent removal is an important question for many transplantation centers.

METHODS

This study includes 818 renal transplant patients whose ureteroneocystostomy anastomoses were completed by use of the Lich-Gregorie procedure during a 2-year period at a transplantation center. We performed 926 renal transplantations at Antalya Medical Park Hospital Renal Transplantation Center between January 2014 and January 2016. The patients were divided into four groups according to the timing of DJS removal.

RESULTS

For group 1, removal time for DJS was between 5 and 7 days; group 2, Removal time for DJS was between 8 and 14 days; group 3, removal time for DJS was between 15 and 21 days; and group 4, removal time for DJS was later than 22 days. The patients were divided into two groups according to removal time of stent as 5 to 14 days and >15 days. DJS was performed again in the patients whose urine output was reduced during the first 5 days after removal of the DJS, whose creatine level increased, and whose graft ureter and collecting tubules were extended as an ultrasonographic finding.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no declared optimal time for the removal of DJS. The removal time was reported between postoperative first week and 3 months in some of the reports of RT centers, according to their protocols. We emphasize that the optimal time for the removal of DJS is 14 to 21 days after RT, based on the findings of our large case report study.

Factors influencing mortality in abdominal solid organ transplant recipients with multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteremia

Background

Although multidrug-resistant (MDR) gram-negative bacteremia (GNB) has been recognized as an important cause of morbidity and mortality among abdominal solid organ transplant (ASOT) recipients, there are no data on its prognostic factors after an interim standard definition of MDR was proposed in 2012. The objective of this study was to describe the epidemiology, microbiology, and predictors of infection-related 30-day mortality in ASOT recipients with MDR GNB.

Methods

We performed a retrospective, double-center analysis of ASOT patients with MDR GNB over a 13-year study period. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the risk factors for mortality.

Results

During the observational period, 2169 subjects underwent ASOT. Ninety-nine episodes of MDR GNB were diagnosed in 91 (4.6%) ASOT recipients, with a predominance of E.coli (29 isolates, 29.3%) and A.baumanii (24 isolates, 24.2%). The median age of these 91 recipients was 45 years (interquartile range 35–54). Mortality after the first episode of MDR GNB was 39.6% (36 deaths). The univariate analysis identified the following variables as predictors of MDR GNB-related mortality: lung focus (P = 0.001),nosocomial origin (P = 0.002), graft from donation after cardiac death or deceased donors (P = 0.023), presence of other concomitant bloodstream infection (P < 0.001), temperature of 40 °C or greater at the onset of MDR GNB (P = 0.039), creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl (P = 0.006), albumin < 30 g/L (P = 0.009), platelet count < 50,000/mm³ (P < 0.001), and septic shock (P < 0.001). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, septic shock (odds ratio (OR) = 160.463, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 19.377–1328.832, P < .001), as well as creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl (OR = 24.498, 95% CI = 3.449–173.998, P = 0.001), nosocomial origin (OR = 23.963, 95% CI = 1.285–46.991, P = 0.033), and presence of other concomitant bloodstream infections (OR = 27.074, 95% CI = 3.937–186.210, P = 0.001) were the variables associated with MDR GNB-related 30-day mortality.

Conclusions

MDR GNB was associated with high morbidity and mortality in ASOT recipients, with a predominant causative organisms being E.coli and A.baumanii. Nosocomial origin, as well as presence of other concomitant bloodstream infections, increased creatinine level and septic shock were the main predictors of MDR GNB-related 30-day mortality.

Ureteral stent placement and immediate graft function are associated with increased risk of BK viremia in the first year after kidney transplantation

Ureteral stent (UrSt) placement has been shown to be a significant independent risk factor for BK viruria, viremia, and BK virus nephropathy. We assessed whether this observation could be validated at our high volume kidney transplant center that has had a strong historical focus on BK virus nephropathy detection. We performed a retrospective case-control study of adults receiving a kidney-only transplant and followed for 1 year between 2004 and 2011 with uniform immunosuppression and use of blood BK virus PCR screening protocol. Among 1147 patients, 443 (38.6%) received a UrSt and 17.2% with a UrSt had BK viremia versus 13.5% without stent (odds ratio 1.33; 95% CI: 1.00-1.78). We confirmed a previously reported association between immediate graft function (IGF) and higher rate of BK viremia (15.7% vs. 5.9% in patients without IGF). On multivariable competing risks Cox regression in patients with IGF, UrSt (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.35; 95% CI: 1.04-1.75) and African American race (aHR 1.47; 95% CI: 1.04-2.09) significantly increased the risk for BK viremia. In the largest sample size to date, we confirmed that UrSt placement during kidney transplant surgery is a risk factor for BK viremia within the first year post-transplant and that IGF is associated with BK viremia.

The prevalence and predictive factors of urinary tract infection in patients undergoing renal transplantation: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the main cause of infectious complications in renal transplant (RTx) recipients and are considered as a potential risk factor for poorer graft outcomes. However, the risk factors of UTIs are controversial. We estimated the incidence and predisposing factors of UTIs in patients undergoing RTx.

METHODS

Seventeen studies (6,671 patients) evaluated the prevalence and the risk factors of UTIs in patients with RTx published January 2000-October 2014 were included. The data were pooled using the fixed effect model or DerSimonian-Laird random effect model according to I².

RESULTS

Thirteen eligible articles with a total of 3,364 patients were evaluated and the pooled prevalence of UTIs was 38.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29%-47%; P < .01). The estimated risk factors for UTI include female sex (odds ratio [OR], 3.11; 95% CI, 2.10-4.13), older age (OR, 1.032; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), duration of catheter (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.03-2.03), acute rejection episodes (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.11-2.41), and receiving a kidney from a deceased donor (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.09-1.52).

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-third of RTx patients had at least 1 UTI after surgery. Female sex, older age of the recipient, long duration of catheter, acute rejection episodes, and cadaveric donor were associated with higher risk of UTI.

Minimizing the Number of Urological Complications After Kidney Transplant: A Comparative Study of Two Types of External Ureteral Stents

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of 2 types of external ureteral stents on the number of urological complications after kidney transplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were retrospectively collected from 366 consecutive transplants performed between January 2013 and January 2015 in our hospital, in which an external ureteral stent was placed during surgery and removed after 9 days. Urological complications were defined as urinary leakage or ureteral stenosis requiring percutaneous nephrostomy placement.

RESULTS

A total of 197 patients received a straight stent with 2 larger side holes (type A; 8F "Covidien" tube; Covidien, Dublin, Ireland) and 169 patients received a single J stent with 7 smaller side holes (type B; 7F "Teleflex" single J stent; Teleflex Medical, Athlone, Ireland). We found a significantly higher number of percutaneous nephrostomy placements with type A stents, with 34 (17%) versus 16 (9%) in type B (P = .030). Reason for percutaneous nephrostomy placement, occurrence of stent dysfunction, and need for early removal (< 8 days) were equal in both groups (P = .397), whereas incidence of rejection and urinary tract infection were higher in type B stent group. Patient and graft survival did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the type B stent was associated with less urological complications compared with the type A stent.

External stent versus double J drainage in patients with radical cystectomy and orthotopic urinary diversion: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare treatment-related outcomes of ureteral stenting with an external versus double J stent in patients with orthotopic reservoirs after radical cystectomy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing radical cystectomy and orthotopic neobladder were randomized into two groups; group I patients received external stents, whereas group II received double J stents. In both groups, preoperative parameters were recorded, and patients were assessed regarding urinary tract infection, urinary leakage, upper tract deterioration, readmission and hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 48 and 45 patients were randomized in the external stent group and double J group, respectively. Both groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, associated comorbidity and oncological status. Early urinary leak was observed in two patients (4.2%) in the external stent group, and in two patients (4.4%) in the double J group (P = 0.95). None of our patients developed ureteral strictures in the external stent group, and one patient did in the double J group (P = 0.3). Positive urine culture (58.3%, 51.1%) as well as febrile urinary tract infections (2.1%, 6.7%) were comparable between both groups, respectively (P = 0.43, 0.28). Wound complications (12.5%, 8.9%) and stent-related complications (2.1%, 0%) were comparable between both groups, respectively (P = 0.57, 0.33). The mean hospital stay was 17.5 days (range 14-32 days) and 14.6 days (range 10-42 days) in both groups, respectively (P = 0.001), with comparable re-admission rates (P = 0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporation of double J stents in orthotopic urinary diversion is a safe alternative to the routinely used external stenting.

[Management of urological complications after renal transplantation]

Urological complications after kidney transplantation can cause a major reduction in renal function. Surgical complications like urinary leakage and ureteral obstruction need to be solved by a specialist in the field of endourological procedures and open surgical interventions. The article summarizes this and other common urological problems after kidney transplantation.

Impact of ureteral stenting on urological complications after kidney transplantation surgery: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Urological complications such as ureteral strictures and ureteral leakage can affect the outcome of kidney transplantation by increasing morbidity and mortality, including graft loss. Controversy still exists regarding the role of stents in renal transplantation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of ureteral stenting in kidney transplantation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study on a series of 798 consecutive renal transplants performed in our center between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2011. Ureteral stents were used in 152 cases (19.1%) of the total (stent group) and were removed 2 weeks postoperatively. Donor and recipient age, sex, type of ureteroneocystostomy, stent and non-stent patients, cold and warm ischemia time, and urological complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of urological complications was 7.8% (62 cases). Ureteral stenosis (3.1%) and ureteral leakage (2.4%) were the most common complications; 39.7% (25 cases) of complications were recorded in the first month after transplantation. Major urological complication rate was 3.3% in the stent group compared with 8.8% in the non-stent group (P = .04). However, stent use was associated with the increase of urinary tract infections rate in the stent group (51.3%) compared with the non-stent group (17.9%) (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, the use of ureteral stents significantly decreased urological complications in kidney transplant recipients but increased the risk for development of urinary tract infections.

Predictors of shock and mortality in solid organ transplant recipients with bacteremia caused by non-lactose-fermenting gram-negative bacilli

BACKGROUND

More data on bacteremia due to non-lactose fermenting gram-negative bacilli (NLF GNB) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are needed. We aimed to investigate the epidemiology, microbiology, and risk factors for mortality and septic shock due to NLF GNB bacteremia in SOT recipients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, double-center study over a 12-year study period. The risk factors for mortality and septic shock in SOT recipients with NLF GNB bacteremia were assessed with multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 230 episodes of bloodstream infections (BSIs) occurred in 159 SOT recipients. Fifty episodes of NLF GNB bacteremia were detected in 47 SOT recipients, with a predominance of Acinetobacter baumanii (27 isolates, 54.0%). The antibiotic resistance rate of all NLF GNB to 10 of 12 antibiotics investigated was more than 50%. The independent risk factors associated with septic shock were platelet count < 50 000/mm(3) (odds ratio (OR) = 14.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.64-78.71, p = 0.002) and late-onset bacteremia (time of onset more than 2 months post-transplant) (OR = 10.87, 95% CI = 1.79-65.89, p = 0.009). Lung focus (OR = 32.91, 95% CI = 2.56-423.18, p = 0.007) and septic shock (OR = 70.38, 95% CI = 4.21-1176.21, p = 0.003) were risk factors for bacteremia-related mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The drug resistance of the pathogens and the morbidity and mortality rates of NLF GNB bacteremia were high in SOT recipients. For septic shock, associated risk factors were thrombocytopenia and late-onset bacteremia. The risk factors significantly associated with mortality were lung focus and septic shock.

Double-J Versus External Ureteral Stents in Kidney Transplantation: A Retrospective Analysis

Background:

Kidney transplantation has long been recognized as the best available therapy for end stage kidney disease.

Objectives:

This study aimed to compare outcomes of double-J versus percutaneous ureteral stent placement in renal transplantation.

Patients and Methods:

A retrospective analysis was performed on data of renal transplantations performed at our institution in a 12-month period. In this period, external and double-J stents were used in parallel. Length of hospital stay and stent-associated complications were evaluated.

Results:

In 76 kidney transplants, 43 external (group 1) and 33 double-J (group 2) urinary stents were used. No significant difference was observed in the number of urinary tract infections, ureteric stenosis or necrosis. The mean overall length of hospital stay was comparable in both groups (20.7 days in group 1 vs 19.3 days in group 2, P = 0.533). For patients without immunological complications, the hospital stay was significantly reduced using double-J stents (12.9 days in group 1, 10.8 days in group 2, P = 0.018). Leakage of the ureteroneocystostomy occurred in 6 out of 43 patients in group 1 (13.9%). No case of anastomotic insufficiency was observed in group 2 (P = 0.035). Macrohematuria was detected in 13 out of the 43 patients in group 1 (30.2%), compared to 3 out of 33 patients in group 2 (9.1%; P = 0.045).

Conclusions:

This nonrandomized comparison of stent types in kidney transplantation supports the use of prophylactic double-J stents in terms of decreased ureteric complications and reduced length of hospital stay.

The Role of Prophylactic versus Selective Ureteric Stenting in Kidney Transplant Patients: A Retrospective Review

Objective

To evaluate the role of prophylactic versus selective ureteric stenting in the development of postoperative ureterovesical complications in kidney transplant recipients.

Methods

Records of 614 transplant patients seen from January 2006 to May 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was the rate of ureterovesical complications, defined as the development of ureteric obstruction or a ureterovesical anastomotic leak. The secondary outcomes were the rate of urinary tract infections and forgotten stents. Using a χ2 test, we compared the primary and secondary outcomes across the selective and prophylactic cohorts. Logistic regression was used to compare the 2 cohorts while adjusting for potential confounders.

Results

The selective and prophylactic cohorts consisted of 258 and 330 patients, respectively. Unadjusted analysis showed that the prophylactic group had a significantly lower rate of ureterovesical complications than did the selective group (2.12% vs 6.20%; odds ratio, 0.33; P = .01). After adjustment for differences in sex and donor type, the prophylactic group still had a lower risk for ureterovesical complications (odds ratio, 0.30; P = .009). Rates of urinary tract infections and forgotten stents did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Prophylactic stenting is associated with a significantly lower rate of ureterovesical complications than is selective stenting.

Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in solid organ transplant recipients with bacteremias

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) remain as life-threatening complications and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacteria can cause serious bacteremias in these recipients. Reviews have aimed to investigate MDR Gram-negative bacteremias; however, they were lacking in SOT recipients in the past. To better understand the characteristics of bacteremias due to MDR Gram-negative bacteria, optimize preventive and therapeutic strategies, and improve the outcomes of SOT recipients, this review summarize the epidemiology, clinical and laboratory characteristics, and explores the mechanisms, prevention, and treatment of MDR Gram-negative bacteria.

Bloodstream infections among solid organ transplant recipients: Epidemiology, microbiology, associated risk factors for morbility and mortality

Bloodstream infections (BSIs) remain important causes of morbidity and mortality among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients and still threaten the success of SOT. In general, among SOT recipients, risk factors for BSIs are associated with prior ICU admission, catheterization, older recipient or donor age…etc. Pulmonary focus, nosocomial source of BSIs, lack of appropriate antibiotic therapy and other variables have significant impacts on BSIs-related mortality in SOT. Most of BSIs in SOT are caused by gram-negative bacteria. However, all aspects including microbiological spectrum, morbidity and mortality rates, risk factors of BSIs and BSIs-related death depend on the type of transplantation. The purpose of this review is to summarize the epidemiology, microbiologic features including antimicrobial resistance of organisms, and associated risk factors for morbidity and mortality of BSIs according to different type of transplantation to better understand the characteristics of BSIs and improve the outcomes after SOT.

Ureteral Stent Placement Increases the Risk for Developing BK Viremia after Kidney Transplantation

The placement of ureteral stent (UrSt) at kidney transplantation reduces major urological complications but increases the risk for developing nephropathy from the BK virus. It is unclear whether UrSt placement increases nephropathy risk by increasing risk of precursor viral replication or by other mechanisms. We retrospectively investigated whether UrSt placement increased the risk for developing BK Viremia (BKVM) in adult and pediatric kidney transplants performed at the University of Florida between July 1, 2007, and December 31, 2010. In this period all recipients underwent prospective BKV PCR monitoring and were maintained on similar immunosuppression. Stent placement or not was based on surgeon preference. In 621 transplants, UrSt were placed in 295 (47.5%). BKVM was seen in 22% versus 16% without UrSt (P = 0.05). In multivariate analyses, adjusting for multiple transplant covariates, only UrSt placement remained significantly associated with BKVM (P = 0.04). UrSt placement significantly increased the risk for BKVM. Routine UrSt placement needs to be revaluated, since benefits may be negated by the need for more BK PCR testing and potential for graft survival-affecting nephritis.

Frequency and clinical outcomes of ESKAPE bacteremia in solid organ transplantation and the risk factors for mortality

BACKGROUND

Although bacteremias caused by the 6 ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter species) have recently been highlighted as a serious complication in solid organ transplant (SOT), more information is urgently needed. We sought to investigate the frequency and clinical outcomes of ESKAPE bacteremia in SOT and determine the risk factors for mortality.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of bacteremia after SOT was reviewed. Risk factors for mortality caused by ESKAPE bacteremia were identified.

RESULTS

Eighty-four episodes of bacteremia were caused by ESKAPE strains. Of these strains, 41 were caused by resistant ESKAPE (rESKAPE) organisms. The only factor for bacteremia-related mortality independently associated with ESKAPE was septic shock (odds ratio [OR] = 21.017, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.038-87.682, P < 0.001). The factors for bacteremia-related mortality independently associated with rESKAPE bacteremia were septic shock (OR = 16.558, 95% CI = 6.620-104.668, P = 0.003) and age ≥40 years (OR = 7.521, 95% CI = 1.196-47.292, P = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

To improve the outcomes of transplantation, more effective therapeutic treatments are of paramount importance when older SOT recipients with bacteremia due to ESKAPE/rESKAPE organisms present with septic shock.

Ureterovesical anastomotic techniques for kidney transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

No consensus exists about which ureterovesical anastomosis technique to use for kidney transplantation. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the existing techniques in relation to the risk of urological complications. All studies that compared ureterovesical anastomotic techniques in kidney transplantation were included. Study endpoints were urinary leakage, ureteral stricture, vesicoureteral reflux and hematuria. Subanalyses of stented and nonstented techniques were performed. Two randomized clinical trials and 24 observational studies were included. Meta-analyses were performed on the Lich-Gregoir (LG) versus Politano-Leadbetter (PL) techniques and LG versus U-stitch (U) techniques. Compared with the PL technique, the LG technique had a significantly lower prevalence of urinary leakage (risk ratio (RR): 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30 to 0.75) and a significantly lower prevalence of hematuria when compared with both PL and U techniques (RR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.49 and RR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.50, respectively), regardless of ureteral stenting. There was no difference in the prevalence of ureteral strictures or vesicoureteral reflux between the various techniques. Of the three most frequently used ureterovesical anastomotic techniques, the LG technique results in fewer urological complications than the PL and U techniques.

Routine intraoperative ureteric stenting for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Major urological complications (MUCs) after kidney transplantation contribute to patient morbidity and compromise graft function. The majority arise from the vesicoureteric anastomosis and present early after transplantation. Ureteric stents have been successfully used to treat such complications. A number of centres have adopted a policy of universal prophylactic stenting, at the time of graft implantation, to reduce the incidence of urine leaks and ureteric stenosis. Stents are associated with specific complications and some centres advocate a policy of only stenting selected anastomoses.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the benefits and harms of routine ureteric stenting to prevent urological complications in kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (up to 8 January 2013) through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs and quasi-RCTs were included in our meta-analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four reviewers assessed the studies for quality against four criteria (allocation concealment, blinding, intention-to-treat and completeness of follow-up). The primary outcome was the incidence of MUCs. Further outcomes of interest were graft and patient survival and the incidence of adverse events (urinary tract infection (UTI), haematuria, irritative symptoms, pain and stent migration). Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the results expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs (1154 patients) of low or moderate quality were identified. The incidence of MUCs was significantly reduced (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.77, P = 0.02, NNT 13) by universal prophylactic stenting. This was dependent on whether the same surgeon performed, or was in attendance, during the operations. Two patients lost their grafts to infective urinary tract complications in the stented group. UTIs, in general, were more common in stented patients (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.15) unless the patients were prescribed cotrimoxazole 480 mg/d: in which case the incidence was equivalent (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.33). Stents appeared generally well tolerated, although studies using longer stents (≥ 20 cm) for longer periods (> 6 weeks) had more problems with encrustation and migration.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Routine prophylactic stenting reduces the incidence of MUCs. Studies comparing selective stenting and universal prophylactic stenting, whilst difficult to design and analyse, would address the unresolved quality of life and economic issues.

Effect of ureteric stents on urological infection and graft function following renal transplantation

AIM: To compare urological infections in patients with or without stents following transplantation and to determine the effect of such infections on graft function.

METHODS: All 285 recipients of kidney transplantation at our centre between 2006 and 2010 were included in the study. Detailed information including stent use and transplant function was collected prospectively and analysed retrospectively. The diagnosis of urinary tract infection was made on the basis of compatible symptoms supported by urinalysis and/or microbiological culture. Graft function, estimated glomerular filtration rate and creatinine at 6 mo and 12 mo, immediate graft function and infection rates were compared between those with a stent or without a stent.

RESULTS: Overall, 196 (183 during initial procedure, 13 at reoperation) patients were stented following transplantation. The overall urine leak rate was 4.3% (12/277) with no difference between those with or without stents - 7/183 vs 5/102, P = 0.746. Overall, 54% (99/183) of stented patients developed a urological infection compared to 38.1% (32/84) of those without stents (P = 0.0151). All 18 major urological infections occurred in those with stents. The use of stent (Wald χ² = 5.505, P = 0.019) and diabetes mellitus (Wald χ² = 5.197, P = 0.023) were found to have significant influence on urological infection rates on multivariate analysis. There were no deaths or graft losses due to infection. Stenting was associated with poorer transplant function at 12 mo.

CONCLUSION: Stents increase the risks of urological infections and have a detrimental effect on early to medium term renal transplant function.

Stented ureterovesical anastomosis in renal transplantation: does it influence the rate of urinary tract infections?

Objective

Our objective was to evaluate the impact of routine use of double-J stents on the incidence of urinary tract infection after renal transplantation.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective-comparative single-centre study in 310 consecutive adult deceased donor kidney recipients transplanted from 2002 to 2006. Patients were divided in two groups, with or without urinary stent implantation. To evaluate the predictive factors for UTI, donor and recipients pre- and post-transplantation data were analysed. Early urological complications and renal function within 12 months of transplantation were included as well.

Results

A total of 157 patients were enrolled to a stent (ST) and 153 patients to a no-stent (NST) group. The rate of urinary tract infection at three months was similar between the two groups (43.3% ST vs. 40.1% NST, p = 0.65). Of the identified pathogens Enterococcus and Escherichia coli were the most common species. In multivariate analysis neither age nor immunosuppressive agents, BMI or diabetes seemed to have influence on the rate of UTI. When compared to males, females had a significantly higher risk for UTI (54.0% vs. 33.5%).

Conclusion

Prophylactic stenting of the ureterovesical anastomosis does not increase the risk of urinary tract infection in the early postoperative period.

Is early removal of prophylactic ureteric stents beneficial in live donor renal transplantation?

Prophylactic ureteric stenting has been shown to reduce ureteric leaks and collecting system obstruction following renal transplantation and is in widespread use. However, the optimal time for removal of ureteric stents after renal transplantation remains unclear. Aim of this study was to compare the result of early versus late removal of ureteric stents after kidney transplantation of the laparoscopically retrieved live related donor grafts. Eligible patients were live donor kidney transplant recipients with normal urinary tracts. All recipients underwent extravesical Lich-Gregoire ureteroneocystostomy over 4F/160 cm polyurethane double J stents by a uniform technique. They were randomized on seventh postoperative day for early removal of stents on postoperative day 7 (Group I), or for late removal on postoperative day 28 (Group II). The incidence of urinary tract infections, asymptomatic bacteriuria, and urological complications were compared. Between 2007 and 2009, 130 kidney transplants were performed at one centre of which 100 were enrolled for the study, and 50 each were randomized into the two groups. Donor and recipient age, sex, native renal disease, immunosupression, number of rejection episodes, and antirejection therapy were similar in the two groups. The occurrence of symptomatic urinary tract infection during the follow-up period of 6 months was significantly less in the early stent removal group [5 out of 50 (10%) in Group I, vs 50 out of 15 (30%) in Group II, P=0.02]. Asymptomatic bacteriuria was documented in 2 out of 50 (4%) in Group I and 4 out of 50 (8%) in Group II (P=0.3). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of ureteric leak, ureteric obstruction, or hematuria in the two groups (P=1.0). We conclude that, in kidney transplant recipients of laparoscopically retrieved live donor grafts, early stent removal at the end of first week reduces the incidence of urinary tract infection without increasing the rate of urine leak or ureteric obstruction.

Routine short-term ureteral stent in living donor renal transplantation: introduction of a simple stent removal technique without using anesthesia and cystoscope

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated routine short-time insertion of ureteral stent in living donor renal transplant at a single center. It was easy to remove the stent without cystoscopy and anesthesia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between October 2007 and July 2010, a single surgeon performed 76 living donor renal transplantations at one institute. All recipients underwent extravesical ureteroneocystostomy with a 2-0 silk suture passed through the venting side hole of the double-J stent into the bladder; a quadruple knot prevented the suture's slippage or distraction from the stent. After removal of the indwelling catheter at 5 days posttransplantation, the 2-0 silk passed with the urinary stream within 72 hours. The double-J stent was removed at 7 to 10 (mean 8.4) days after kidney transplantation by pulling the 2-0 silk out of the urethral orifice without anesthesia or cystoscopy.

RESULTS

There was only one case of stenosis, which was resolved by surgery. No patient developed urinary leakage. There were three episodes of urinary tract infection in 70 patients during first 6 months' follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine short-term stenting is a safe and effective technique in living donor renal transplantation. Removal of the stent is feasible without cystoscopy or anesthesia.

Urinary tract infections in renal transplant recipients

INTRODUCTION

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are most common infections in renal transplant recipients and are considered a potential risk factor for poorer graft outcomes.

AIM

To evaluate incidence, clinical manifestations, microbiology, risk factors for UTIs, and the influence of UTIs on long-term renal graft function.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed urine cultures with reference to clinical data of patients who received a renal transplantation from January to December 2009 with a 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The 1170 urine cultures were correlated with clinical data from 89 renal transplant recipients, including 58.4% males and on overall mean age of 48±14 years. The 151 episodes in 49 patients consisted of asymptomatic bacteriuria (65%, n=98); lower UTIs (13%, n=19); and upper UTIs (22%, n=34), as well as five cases of bacteremia. Nearly 48% of UTIs were diagnosed during the first month posttransplantation. The most frequently isolated uropathogens were Enterococcus faecium (33%, n=24) and Escherichia coli (31%, n=23). Beginning from the second month, most frequently found bacterium in urine cultures was E coli (65% n=51). Risk factors for posttransplant UTIs were female gender and a history of an acute rejection episode and/or a cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. All patients with vesicoureteral reflux of strictures at the ureterovesical junction suffered recurrent UTIs (n=7). The evolution of renal graft function did not differ significantly between patients with versus without UTIs.

CONCLUSIONS

UTIs a frequent problem after kidney transplantation most commonly exist as asymptomatic bacteriuria. E coli and E faecium are ther predominant pathogens. Exposure to intensified immunosuppression due to acute rejection episodes or CMV infections represents a risk factor for UTIs. Vesicoureteral reflux or strictures at the ureterovesical junction are risk factors for recurrent UTIs. UTIs did not impair 1-year graft function.