Impact of stents on urological complications and health care expenditure in renal transplant recipients: results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: We performed a randomized, prospective trial to compare the incidence of early urological complications and health care expenditures in renal transplant recipients with or without ureteral stenting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients receiving a renal transplant at a single center were randomized preoperatively to undergo Double-J stent or no-stent ureterovesical anastomosis from November 1998 to October 2001. Early urological mechanical complications were recorded, including urinary leakage or obstruction, or urinary tract infections within 3 months of transplantation. Direct health care costs associated with stenting, urological complications and urinary tract infection management were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were randomized to a stent (112) and a no-stent (89) group. In the no-stent group 11 patients received a stent due to intraoperative findings and were excluded from study. At 3 months there were significantly more cases of urinary leakage (8.9% vs 0.9%, p <0.008) and ureteral obstruction (7.7 % vs 0%, p <0.004) in the no-stent than in the stent group. Mean time of stent removal was 74.3 days. A significant increase in urinary tract infections was observed when stent was left greater than 30 days after transplantation compared to the rate in the no-stent group (p <0.02). An additional cost of 151 UK pounds per patient was incurred in the no-stent group vs the stent group. CONCLUSIONS: Using a ureteral stent at renal transplantation significantly decreases the early urinary complications of urine leakage and obstruction. However, there is a significant increase in urinary tract infections, primarily beyond 30 days after transplantation. Stent removal within 4 weeks of insertion appears advisable.

Kidney transplantation into an ileal conduit: a single center experience of 59 cases.

PURPOSE: Congenital and acquired conditions of the lower urinary tract can lead to renal failure requiring transplantation. Under these circumstances transplantation into a urinary diversion or an augmented bladder may be the only option. We report our experience with renal transplantation into ileal conduits in the last 22 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1980 and August 2002, 59 renal transplants were drained into an ileal conduit in 54 patients at our center, accounting for 2.3% of the total number of transplants during this period. Median patient age was 28 years (range 1 to 63) and 13 patients were children. There were 12 living related and 47 cadaveric kidneys transplanted. Spina bifida, the most common cause of end stage renal disease, was seen in 22 patients (41%). Patient and graft survival following transplantation into an ileal conduit were compared with that in the 2,579 other transplants done at this center between January 1980 and December 2001. RESULTS: Actuarial graft survival was 90% at 1 year, 63% at 5 years, 52% at 10 years and 52% at 15 years. Actuarial patient survival was 95% at 1 year, 83% at 5 years, 69% at 10 years and 69% at 15 years. Graft and patient survival was statistically similar to the outcome of the 2,579 other transplants done at our center between January 1980 and December 2001. At a mean followup of 4.6 years (range 0.1 to 20) mean serum creatinine in the 39 functioning grafts was 156 mmol/l. Of the surgical complications 21% were directly attributable to the ileal conduit and it could be considered a risk factor contributing to the complication in a further 39%. Symptomatic urinary tract infection was noted in 65% of the patients, although it did not lead to graft loss. At followup 7 patients had died with a functioning graft. Grafts were lost due to chronic allograft nephropathy in 3 cases, renal artery stenosis in 2, renal vein thrombosis in 2, and acute severe rejection, staghorn calculus and ureteroileal stricture in 1 each. CONCLUSIONS: Kidney transplant drainage into an ileal conduit for urinary diversion is an effective treatment for patients with end stage renal disease due to abnormal lower urinary tracts. Despite preexisting co-morbidity and the increased complication rate long-term graft and patient survival is comparable to that in the normal transplant population.

Bedside ultrasound: a useful tool for the on-call urologist?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy and benefit of urgent bedside ultrasound scanning in urological emergencies by urology trainees. METHODS: In this prospective study, 111 patients (86 acute flank pain, 15 renal failure, 10 haematuria) referred as urological emergencies, were scanned for urinary tract abnormalities at the bedside, by a trainee urologist, over 18 months. The ultrasound findings were compared with the results of imaging performed by a consultant radiologist and its influence on clinical management analysed. RESULTS: Bedside ultrasound proved life saving in 5 patients (2 pyonephrosis, 2 leaking aneurysms, one bilateral ureteric injury). It significantly influenced management in 11 patients, excluded obstruction in the presence of infection.in 13 patients, helped in early diagnosis in 32 patients and ruled out gross urological pathology in 28 patients. It was misleading in 22 patients, mainly with ureteric colic (where the timing of the test can affect the findings), though the outcome was not adversely affected in any. Bedside ultrasound was reasonably accurate (sensitivity 81% and specificity 92%). CONCLUSIONS: Bedside ultrasound is a useful tool to help the decision-making in urological emergencies and reasonably accurate in hands of a trainee urologist. It is especially helpful for excluding obstruction in presence of infection or renal failure. However it has inherent limitations in assessing acute ureteric colic.