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

Background : The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of prophylactic ureteric stenting during kidney transplantation (KT). Methods : The authors retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent KT between June 2016 and June 2019. The prophylactic ureteral stenting group (doub...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical transplantation and research 2021, 35(1), , pp.41-47
Hauptverfasser: Park, JongBeom, Lee, Soo Yeun, Lee, Hyung Soon, Shin, Sug Kyun, Kim, Tae Hwan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background : The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of prophylactic ureteric stenting during kidney transplantation (KT). Methods : The authors retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent KT between June 2016 and June 2019. The prophylactic ureteral stenting group (double-J [DJ]) and no-stent group (no-DJ) were compared with respect to the clinical data and surgical outcomes. Results : A total of 42 patients underwent KT; 17 patients were classified into the DJ group and 25 patients into the no-DJ group. Antithymocyte globulin induction and donor- specific antibody positivity were significantly higher in the DJ group. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI). The time to postoperative UTI was significantly shorter in the DJ group than in the no-DJ group (33.5±7.8 vs. 105.3±71.6 days, P=0.013). The development of postoperative BK viremia was significantly higher in the no-DJ group (0.0% vs. 16.0%, P=0.035). Urologic complications were significantly higher in the no-DJ group (0.0% vs. 16.0%, P=0.035). In the no-DJ group, urologic complications occurred in four patients: ureteroneocystostomy stenosis in three patients and ureteroneocystostomy leakage in one patient. Percutaneous ureteral interventions were performed for all patients using percutaneous nephrostomy and reno-uretero-vesical stenting. However, there were no postoperative urologic complications in the DJ group. Conclusions: Prophylactic ureteric stenting during KT may be safe and feasible without significantly increasing the incidence of UTI and BK viremia. Additionally, prophylactic ureteric stenting may reduce urologic complications after KT.
ISSN:2671-8790
3022-6783
2671-8804
3022-7712
DOI:10.4285/kjt.20.0050