Indian Journal of Urology Users online:885  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2002  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 54-57

Optimum duration of J.J. stenting in live related renal transplantation


Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India

Correspondence Address:
Balbir S Verma
Department of Surgery, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh - 160 047
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

Purpose: Ureterovesical anastomosis related compli­cations might cause significant morbidity, allograft loss and even mortality. Routine prophylactic JJ stenting against these complications though controversial seems to be gaining literature support. - ' There is no consensus as to the optimum duration of stenting and various stud­ies report stenting for 1 week to 3 months. This study was conducted to know the optimum duration of JJ stenting in renal transplantation. Material and Methods: 52 (group 1) live related renal transplant recipients, stented for 2 weeks were compared to 57 (group 2) historical controls (from our previous study 5), stented for 4 weeks. A 16 cm/6F polyurethane JJ stent was left across the ureteroneocvstostomy performed by Lich Gregoir technique. The stent was removed under local anesthesia within same admission in group 1 and in second admission in group 2. Both groups received simi­lar antibiotics and bnmunosuppression and were moni­tored for urological complications. Results: There was no major urological complication requiring surgical intervention in either group. The inci­dence of minor complications resolving with conservative management was also similar in the 2 groups. There were 2 ,forgotten stents in group 2 (badly encrusted and removed at 3 years and 11 months respectively). The second ad­mission in group 2 for stent removal incurred extra cost as it was done in the routine operation theatre to avoid infection. Conclusions: Reducing the duration of stenting from 4 weeks to 2 weeks avoids complications associated with pro­longed use of stent without compromising the beneficial ef-' feats of stent in preventing the urological complications. It obviates the risk of forgotten stent as well as curtails the cost of second admission for stent removal.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF Not available]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3518    
    Printed117    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 6    

Recommend this journal

 

HEALTHWARE INDIA