4.0 Article

Systematic use of magnetic double J stent in pediatric kidney transplantation: A single-center experience

期刊

PEDIATRIC TRANSPLANTATION
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/petr.14529

关键词

outcome; pediatric kidney transplantation; quality-of-life; surgical

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A retrospective analysis of 32 consecutive pediatric kidney transplant surgeries was conducted to evaluate the systematic use of magnetic ureteral double J stent (mDJS). The results showed that the use of mDJS in these patients was safe and feasible. The systematic use of this device contributes to a reduction in the need for general anesthesia and hospitalization rate.
Background: The intraoperative insertion of a double J stent (DJS) is known to reduce urological complications and is broadly accepted in kidney transplant (KTx) patients. The magnetic ureteral DJS (mDJS) represents a valid alternative device as it can be removed without cystoscopy, using a transurethral magnet. This is of particular importance in the pediatrics, allowing us to avoid cystoscopy requiring general anesthesia (GA) in this population. To date, few data are available on the systematic use of mDJS in pediatric patients undergoing KTx. Methods: We report a retrospective analysis of 32 consecutive pediatric KTx at our center from July 2020 to December 2021. Results: Ureteral stents remained in place for a median of 35 days (range: 12-76). Non-surgical magnetic removal of the mDJS was attempted in all cases without complications. In most cases (69%), the removal procedure was performed in an outpatient clinic. In 10 cases, the mDJS was removed in the operating room under sedation before removal of the abdominal Tenckhoff catheter. All patients were clinically followed (range: 3-15 months). Conclusions: We confirm the safety and feasibility of systematic use of mDJS in the setting of pediatric KTx. The systematic use of this device contributes to reduce the need for GA and the rate of hospital admission.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据