Ureterovesical anastomotic techniques for kidney transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Victor P Alberts, Mirza M Idu, Dink A Legemate, Maria P Laguna Pes, Robert C Minnee

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

83 Citations (Scopus)
147 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

No consensus exists about which ureterovesical anastomosis technique to use for kidney transplantation. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the existing techniques in relation to the risk of urological complications. All studies that compared ureterovesical anastomotic techniques in kidney transplantation were included. Study endpoints were urinary leakage, ureteral stricture, vesicoureteral reflux and hematuria. Subanalyses of stented and nonstented techniques were performed. Two randomized clinical trials and 24 observational studies were included. Meta-analyses were performed on the Lich-Gregoir (LG) versus Politano-Leadbetter (PL) techniques and LG versus U-stitch (U) techniques. Compared with the PL technique, the LG technique had a significantly lower prevalence of urinary leakage (risk ratio (RR): 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30 to 0.75) and a significantly lower prevalence of hematuria when compared with both PL and U techniques (RR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.49 and RR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.50, respectively), regardless of ureteral stenting. There was no difference in the prevalence of ureteral strictures or vesicoureteral reflux between the various techniques. Of the three most frequently used ureterovesical anastomotic techniques, the LG technique results in fewer urological complications than the PL and U techniques.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)593-605
Number of pages13
JournalTransplant International
Volume27
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2014
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

© 2014 Steunstichting ESOT.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Ureterovesical anastomotic techniques for kidney transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this