Volume 22, Issue 1 e13065
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

How to stent the ureter after kidney transplantation in children?—A comparison of two methods of urinary drainage

Anuradha S. ter Haar

Anuradha S. ter Haar

Department of Pediatric Nephrology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Rulan S. Parekh

Rulan S. Parekh

Department of Pediatric Nephrology, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
Ralph W. J. Leunissen

Ralph W. J. Leunissen

Department of Pediatric Nephrology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Joop van den

Joop van den

Department of Pediatric Urology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Armando J. Lorenzo

Armando J. Lorenzo

Division of Urology, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
Diane Hebert

Diane Hebert

Department of Pediatric Nephrology, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
Mandy G. Keijzer-Veen

Mandy G. Keijzer-Veen

Department of Pediatric Nephrology, Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Karlien Cransberg

Corresponding Author

Karlien Cransberg

Department of Pediatric Nephrology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Correspondence

Karlien Cransberg, Department of Pediatric Nephrology, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 27 October 2017
Citations: 5

Abstract

Ureteral stenting after pediatric renal transplantation serves to prevent obstruction and urinary leakage, but can also cause complications. This study compares the complication rates of both methods. Data were retrospectively collected at Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (splint group, n = 61) and Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada (JJ catheter group, n = 50). Outcome measures included urological interventions and incidence of UTIs during the first 3 months post-transplantation. The splint was removed after a median of 9 (IQR 8-12), the JJ catheter after 42 (IQR 36-50) days. Seven (11.5%) children in the splint group needed at least one urological re-intervention versus two in the JJ catheter group (P-value .20). UTIs developed in 19 children (31.1%) in the splint group and in twenty-five (50.0%) children in the JJ catheter group (P-value .04), with a total number of 27 vs. 57 UTIs (P-value .02). Nine (33.3%) vs. 35 (61.4%) of these, respectively, occurred during the presence of the splint (P-value <.001). Children with a JJ catheter developed more UTIs than children with a splint; the latter, however, tended to require more re-interventions. Modification of either method is needed to find the best way to stent the ureter.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.