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.

Routine Kidney Graft Ultrasound After Elective Ureteric Stent Removal: Does it Help?

Transplantation (KTx) is considered to be the best renal replacement therapy, and improving its outcomes remains a primary challenge. KTx ureteral stenting has been used to prevent urological complications, but there is no consensus on the timing of stent removal, and literature regarding routine ultrasonography after ureteric stent removal (RUSUS) to detect complications is lacking. Point-of-care ultrasound has been gaining drive in the medical community in recent years, including nephrologists. We aimed to define the incidence of urological complications diagnosed with RUSUS, if those findings changed patient's management and ultrasound utility. Contrary to previously published data, in our cohort RUSUS allowed a timely diagnosis and early treatment of urological complications, a key factor for successful transplantation. KTx point-of-care ultrasound is a cost-effective and reproducible test that provides relevant information to guide clinical decisions, seeming most efficient when performed approximately 2 weeks post ureteral stent removal. Interventional nephrologists can promptly perform these examinations, reducing waiting times and improving graft and patient's survival.

Urinary Tract Infections in the First 6 Months after Renal Transplantation

Purpose

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are common in the first 6 months after renal transplantation, and there are only limited data about UTIs after transplantation in Saudi Arabia in general.

Methods

A retrospective study from January 2017 to May 2020 with 6-month follow-up.

Results

279 renal transplant recipients were included. Mean age was 43.4 ± 16.0 years, and114 (40.9%) were women. Urinary stents were inserted routinely during transplantation and were removed 35.3 ± 28 days postoperatively. Ninety-seven patients (35%) developed urinary tract infections (UTIs) in the first six months after renal transplantation. Of those who developed the first episode of UTI, the recurrence rates were 57%, 27%, and 14% for having one, two, or three recurrences, respectively. Late urinary stent removals, defined as more than 21 days postoperatively, tended to have more UTIs (OR: 1.43, P: 0.259, CI: 0.76–2.66). Age >40, female gender, history of neurogenic bladder, and transplantation abroad were statistically significant factors associated with UTIs and recurrence. Diabetes, level of immunosuppression, deceased donor renal transplantation, pretransplant residual urine volume, or history of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) was not associated with a higher incidence of UTIs. UTIs were asymptomatic in 60% but complicated with bacteremia in 6% of the cases. Multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) were the causative organisms in 42% of cases, and in-hospital treatment was required in about 50% of cases. Norfloxacin + Bactrim DD (160/800 mg) every other day was not associated with the lower risk of developing UTIs compared to the standard prophylaxis daily Bactrim SS (80/400 mg).

Conclusion

UTIs and recurrence are common in the first 6 months after renal transplantation. Age >40, female gender, neurogenic bladder, and transplantation abroad are associated with the increased risk of UTIs and recurrence. MDROs are common causative organisms, and hospitalization is frequently required. Dual prophylactic antibiotics did not seem to be advantageous over the standard daily Bactrim.

Outpatient ureteric stent removal following kidney transplantation

During a kidney transplant, a plastic tube (stent) is placed in the ureter, connecting the new kidney to the bladder, in order to keep the new join open during the initial phase of transplantation. The stent is then removed after a few weeks via a camera procedure (cystoscopy), as it is no longer needed. The present study compared performing this in the operating theatre or in clinic for transplanted patients using a new single-use type of camera with an integrated grasper system. The results have shown that it is safe and cost-effective to do this in clinic, despite patients being susceptible to infection after transplantation.

The Impact of Timing of Stent Removal on the Incidence of UTI, Recurrence, Symptomatology, Resistance, and Hospitalization in Renal Transplant Recipients

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of early (<3 weeks) versus late (>3 weeks) urinary stent removal on urinary tract infections (UTIs) post renal transplantation.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed including all adult renal transplants who were transplanted between January 2017 and May 2020 with a minimum of 6-month follow-up at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Results

A total of 279 kidney recipients included in the study were stratified into 114 in the early stent removal group (ESR) and 165 in the late stent removal group (LSR). Mean age was 43.4 ± 15.8; women: n: 114, 40.90%; and deceased donor transplant: n: 55, 19.70%. Mean stent removal time was 35.3 ± 28.0 days posttransplant (14.1 ± 4.6 days in the ESR versus 49.9 ± 28.1 days in LSR, p < 0.001). Seventy-four UTIs were diagnosed while the stents were in vivo or up to two weeks after the stent removal “UTIs related to the stent” (n = 20, 17.5% in ESR versus n = 54, 32.7% in LSR; p=0.006). By six months after transplantation, there were 97 UTIs (n = 36, 31.6% UTIs in ESR versus n = 61, 37% in LSR; p=0.373). Compared with UTIs diagnosed after stent removal, UTIs diagnosed while the stent was still in vivo tended to be complicated (17.9% versus 4.9%, p: 0.019), recurrent (66.1% versus 46.3%; p: 0.063), associated with bacteremia (10.7% versus 0%; p: 0.019), and requiring hospitalization (61% versus 24%, p: 0.024). Early stent removal decreased the need for expedited stent removal due to UTI reasons (rate of UTIs before stent removal) (n = 11, 9% in the early group versus n = 45, 27% in the late group; p=0.001). The effect on the rate of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) was less clear (33% versus 47%, p: 0.205). Early stent removal was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of UTIs related to the stent (HR = 0.505, 95% CI: 0.302-0.844, p=0.009) without increasing the incidence of urological complications. Removing the stent before 21 days posttransplantation decreased UTIs related to stent (aOR: 0.403, CI: 0.218-0.744). Removing the stent before 14 days may even further decrease the risk of UTIs (aOR: 0.311, CI: 0.035- 2.726).

Conclusion

Early ureteric stent removal defined as less than 21 days post renal transplantation reduced the incidence of UTIs related to stent without increasing the incidence of urological complications. UTIs occurring while the ureteric stent still in vivo were notably associated with bacteremia and hospitalization. A randomized trial will be required to further determine the best timing for stent removal.

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.

Enhanced Recovery after Renal Transplantation Decreases Recipients' Urological Complications and Hospital Stay: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The objective of this study was to compare enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) against traditional perioperative care for renal transplant recipients. Outcome measures included complications, length of stay (LOS), readmission rates, graft and patient survival up to one-year post-transplant. We initially screened Medline, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science databases. We identified 3029 records. From these, 114 full texts were scrutinized for inclusion. Finally, 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis corresponding to 2037 renal transplant recipients. ERAS resulted in lower incidence of urological complications (95CI: 0.276, 0.855) (I² = 53.08%) compared to traditional perioperative practice. This referred to ureteric stenoses (95CI: 0.186–0.868) (I² = 0%) and urinary tract infections (95CI: 0.230–0.978) (I² = 71.55%). ERAS decreased recipients’ LOS (95CI: −2.876, −0.835) (I² = 86.55%). Compared to standard practice, ERAS protocols did not increase unplanned readmissions (95CI:0.800, 1.680) (I² = 0%). Up to one-year post-transplant, graft survival rates were similar across the ERAS and the control groups (95CI:0.420, 1.722) (I² = 0%). There was also no difference in recipients’ one-year post-transplant survival (95CI:0.162, 3.586) (I² = 0%). Our results suggest that ERAS protocols can be safely incorporated in the perioperative care of renal transplant recipients, decrease their urological complications and shorten their length of hospital stay without affecting unplanned readmission rates.

How to Treat Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Urinary Tract Infections in the Kidney Transplant Recipients?

Patients with end-stage renal functions are treated with renal transplantation. After the transplantation, kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are at the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI). UTI in KTR may be symptomatic and asymptomatic. Asymptomatic UTI is the presence of the organisms without any signs and symptoms. There are various ways suggested in the published research papers to deal with UTI in the KTR. The goal of this literature review is to explore how to treat symptomatic and asymptomatic UTI in KTR. A PubMed search was conducted to identify the studies explaining the methods used to deal with UTI in KTR. A total number of 2158 articles were found while searching for regular keywords; however, we found 996 articles with the medical subject heading (Mesh) keywords. After applying the inclusion/ exclusion criteria, 56 articles with the regular keywords search and 29 articles with the Mesh keywords search were selected. These articles included 24 randomized clinical trials, 16 clinical trials, 7 review articles, 5 case reports, 2 controlled clinical trials, 2 observational studies, and 1 cross-sectional study. Our analysis has shown that the early removal of the stent after the transplantation and the use of antibiotics are beneficial in reducing the incidence of symptomatic UTI in the KTR; whereas, treating asymptomatic UTI in KTR has not been proven helpful in reducing the incidence of developing symptomatic UTI later on.

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.

A survey of Canadian renal transplant surgeons: Use of ureteric stents and technique of the ureteroneocystotomy

INTRODUCTION

The role of ureteric stenting in renal transplant has been well-demonstrated. The goal of this survey was to determine the utilization of ureteric stents by Canadian transplant surgeons, and how the ureteroneocystotomy and followup is performed.

METHODS

An online survey was sent to the 40 surgeon members of the Canadian Society of Transplantation. The primary outcome was the rate of ureteric stent use at the time of renal transplantation. The secondary outcomes were the ureteric stent dwell time, use and type of prophylactic antibiotics, and the use of routine post-transplant ultrasonography.

RESULTS

All respondents (25) used ureteric stent routinely and 92% remove the stent between four and six weeks postoperatively. Prophylactic antibiotics were used 64% of the time for ureteric stent removal. The majority of surgeons do not routinely perform a post-stent removal ultrasound. Fifty-six percent of respondents perform a refluxing anastomosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Ureteric stents are routinely used in renal transplant in Canada. Areas for improvement and topics of debate identified from this survey are the need for peri-stent removal antibiotics, the role of post-stent removal ultrasound, the duration of stent dwell time, and the need for a non-refluxing ureteroneocystotomy.

Early versus late ureteric stent removal after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage kidney disease. In a previous review we concluded that the routine use of ureteric stents in kidney transplantation reduces the incidence of major urological complications (MUC). Unfortunately, this reduction appears to lead to a concomitant rise in urinary tract infections (UTI). For kidney recipients UTI is now the commonest post-transplant complication. This represents a considerable risk to the immunosuppressed transplant recipient, particularly in the era of increased immunologically challenging transplants. There are a number of different approaches taken when considering ureteric stenting and these are associated with differing degrees of morbidity and hospital cost.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of early versus late removal of the ureteric stent in kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 27 March 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs and quasi-RCTs were included in our meta-analysis. We included recipients of kidney transplants regardless of demography (adults or children) or the type of stent used.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors reviewed the identified studies to ascertain if they met inclusion criteria. We designated removal of a ureteric stent before the third postoperative week (< day 15) or during the index transplant admission as "early" removal. The studies were assessed for quality using the risk of bias tool. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of MUC. Further outcomes of interest were the incidence of UTI, idiosyncratic stent-related complications, hospital-related costs and adverse events. A subgroup analysis was performed examining the difference in complications reported depending on the type of ureteric stent used; bladder indwelling (BI) versus per-urethral (PU). Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies (1127 patients) were included in our analysis. Generally the risk of bias of the included studies was judged low or unclear; they addressed the research question and utilised a prospective randomised design. It is uncertain whether early stent removal verus late stent removal improved the incidence of MUC (5 studies, 1127 participants: RR 1.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 5.71; I² = 21%; low certainty evidence). The incidence of UTI may be reduced in the early stent removal group (5 studies, 1127 participants: RR 0.49 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; I² = 59%; moderate certainty evidence). This possible reduction in the UTI incidence was only apparent if a BI stent was used, (3 studies, 539 participants, RR 0.45 95% CI 0.29 to 0.70; I² = 13%; moderate certainty evidence). However, if an externalised PU stent was used there was no discernible difference in UTI incidence between the early and late group (2 studies, 588 participants: RR 0.60 95% CI 0.17, 2.03; I² = 83%; low certainty evidence). Data on health economics and quality of life outcomes were lacking.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Early removal of ureteric stents following kidney transplantation may reduce the incidence of UTI while it uncertain if there is a higher risk of MUC. BI stents are the optimum method for achieving this benefit.

Early double J stent removal in renal transplant patients to prevent urinary tract infection - systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ureteral stents are routinely used in renal transplant and are associated with reduced urological complications but increased urinary tract infections (UTIs). There is no agreement on the preferred time to removal of stents after transplantation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stent duration of <14 days vs > =14 days. Electronic databases were searched to identify RCTs that compared early vs late stent removal. Primary outcome was urinary tract infections. Secondary outcomes included various urological complications. No significant difference in UTI rates was demonstrated between short and long stent duration (relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-1.64), with significant heterogeneity (I² = 86%). Sensitivity analysis evaluating studies with low risk of bias for allocation concealment demonstrated statistically significant lower rates of UTI with short stent duration (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32-0.71) with no heterogeneity. No significant difference was demonstrated for the outcome of major urological complications (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50-1.05), without heterogeneity. Ureteral stenosis rates were significantly lower in the short duration arm (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.98). Early removal of ureteral stents after renal transplant may be associated with reduced rates of UTI and ureteral stenosis. Additional RCTs are needed.

[Allogeneic kidney transplantation. Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative management]

Allogeneic renal transplantation is the best treatment for many patients with chronic renal failure and end-stage kidney disease. Especially the health-related quality of life markedly improves after renal transplantation and the side effects of dialysis treatment as well as the progression of organ and tissue deterioration related to renal failure which are not treated effectively by dialysis are greatly reduced. To achieve good results of renal transplantation, however, the best possible preoperative as well as perioperative and postoperative conditions have to be established and patients on waiting lists need to be well prepared. Interdisciplinary patient care is needed before and after renal transplantation in order to achieve durable and long-term success of renal transplantation.

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.