In our initial experience of kidney transplantation, we performed an extravesical uretero-cystostomy (U-C), but in 1997 we shifted to a uretero-ureterostomy (U-U) with the aim of reducing early and late urological complications. A data base was constructed to compare the incidence, donor and recipient risk factors, treatments, and outcomes of urological complications with the two techniques. From 1990 to the end of July 2004, 894 kidney transplants included 43 from living donors and 851 from cadaveric donors with 804 first and 47 second transplants. We observed 48 urinary fistulas (5.4%): 45 were successfully repaired and three were treated with a ureteral stent with two good results; and one failed at a late operation. We had 26 early stenoses (2.9%), all of which were successfully treated: 16 with surgery and 10 with a stent. Donor and recipient risk factors for fistula and early stenosis did not reach statistical significance, confirming the technical etiology of these complications. There were only six cases of late ureteral stenosis in patients operated after 1990, and in eight cases of U-C we observed vesico ureteral reflux. There were 88 urological complications, with only one kidney lost. The shift from U-C to U-U did not change the incidence of urological complications, but with U-U we observed a significant decrease in the number of postoperative urinary infections, an easier possibility to resolve ureteral stenosis with endourology and no reflux. It is now our first choice with a normal ureter.

Urological complications in kidney transplantation: ureterocystostomy versus uretero-ureterostomy / Faenza, A; Nardo, B; Fuga, G; Liviano-D'Arcangelo, G; Grammatico, F; Montalti, R; Bertelli, R; Beltempo, P; Puviani, L. - In: TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS. - ISSN 0041-1345. - 37:6(2005), p. 2518-20. [10.1016/j.transproceed.2005.06.079]

Urological complications in kidney transplantation: ureterocystostomy versus uretero-ureterostomy

Montalti, R;
2005

Abstract

In our initial experience of kidney transplantation, we performed an extravesical uretero-cystostomy (U-C), but in 1997 we shifted to a uretero-ureterostomy (U-U) with the aim of reducing early and late urological complications. A data base was constructed to compare the incidence, donor and recipient risk factors, treatments, and outcomes of urological complications with the two techniques. From 1990 to the end of July 2004, 894 kidney transplants included 43 from living donors and 851 from cadaveric donors with 804 first and 47 second transplants. We observed 48 urinary fistulas (5.4%): 45 were successfully repaired and three were treated with a ureteral stent with two good results; and one failed at a late operation. We had 26 early stenoses (2.9%), all of which were successfully treated: 16 with surgery and 10 with a stent. Donor and recipient risk factors for fistula and early stenosis did not reach statistical significance, confirming the technical etiology of these complications. There were only six cases of late ureteral stenosis in patients operated after 1990, and in eight cases of U-C we observed vesico ureteral reflux. There were 88 urological complications, with only one kidney lost. The shift from U-C to U-U did not change the incidence of urological complications, but with U-U we observed a significant decrease in the number of postoperative urinary infections, an easier possibility to resolve ureteral stenosis with endourology and no reflux. It is now our first choice with a normal ureter.
2005
Urological complications in kidney transplantation: ureterocystostomy versus uretero-ureterostomy / Faenza, A; Nardo, B; Fuga, G; Liviano-D'Arcangelo, G; Grammatico, F; Montalti, R; Bertelli, R; Beltempo, P; Puviani, L. - In: TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS. - ISSN 0041-1345. - 37:6(2005), p. 2518-20. [10.1016/j.transproceed.2005.06.079]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/759386
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 40
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 28
social impact