4.4 Article

Augmentation cystoplasty in renal transplantation: A good and safe option-experience with 25 cases

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 60, Issue 5, Pages 770-774

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01947-7

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. To assess the surgical and long-term results of renal transplantation in 25 patients with bladder dysfunction and augmentation cystoplasty. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the evolution and surgical outcome of 25 renal transplants in 24 recipients with augmentation cystoplasty. The mean patient age at transplantation was 27.6 years. The etiology of bladder dysfunction was neurogenic bladder with detrusor hyperreflexia (I I patients), tuberculosis (5 patients), vesicoureteral reflux (4 patients), posterior urethral valves (3 patients), and interstitial cystitis (I patient). Seventeen transplants were from living donors. Augmentation cystoplasty was performed before transplantation in 21 patients. The bowel segments used in the augmentation cystoplasty included ileum in 16, ileocecal segments in 2, and sigmoid in 5 patients. The donor ureter was anastomosed to the native bladder in 16 patients, to the bowel segment in 6, and to the native ureter in 3. Results. Twenty kidneys (80%) were functioning at a mean follow-up of 53.2 months (range 6 to 118). The mean serum creatinine was 1.56 mg/dL (range 0.7 to 2.6). Three patients died of unrelated causes and 1 of adenocarcinoma that originated at the vesicointestinal anastomosis. The actuarial graft survival at 1, 2, and 5 years was 96%, 92%, and 78%, respectively. Complications included symptomatic urinary infection, ureteral stenosis, and lymphocele. Conclusions. Augmentation cystoplasty is a safe and effective method to restore function in noncompliant bladders. Renal transplantation can be performed safely after augmentation cystoplasty. (C) 2002, Elsevier Science Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available