Systematic use of magnetic double J stent in paediatric kidney transplantation: a single centre experience
Gionata Spagnoletti1, Giuseppe Marincola1, Zoe Larghi Laurerio1, Isabella Guzzo2, Luca Dello Strologo2, Marco Spada1.
1Division of Abdominal Transplantation and Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, IRCCS, Rome, Italy; 2Division of Nephrology and Renal Transplant, Department of Pediatric Specialties, Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
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 paediatric population, as cystoscopy usually requires general anaesthesia that has been linked to later development of learning disability. To date few data are available on the systematic use of mDJS in paediatric patients undergoing KTx.
Methods: We report a retrospective analysis of 32 consecutive paediatric patients undergoing kidney transplantation at our centre from July 2020 to December 2021. Patients’ characteristics reported in table 1.
Results: Ureteral stents remained in place for a median of 35 days (range 12-76 days). Non-surgical magnetic removal of the mDJS was attempted in all cases without complications. In most cases the removal procedure was performed in an outpatient clinic by a single operator with no need for radiation. In 10 cases the mDJS were 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 paediatric kidney transplantation. The systematic use of this device contributes to reduce the need for general anaesthesia, the rate of hospital admission as well as radiation exposure. All the above likely reflect on healthcare costs reduction and better care for children.
Table 1. Patients’ characteristics
Number of patients |
32 |
---|---|
Gender [male/female] (%) | 17/15 (53%/47%) |
Age (years) [median + range] |
12.1 (2.0 – 17.2) |
Recipient weight (kg) [average + range] |
31.9 (8.7 – 66.8) |
Cause of end-stage renal disease (#) Nephrological Urological Others |
12 11 9 |
Donor Deceased Living Donor |
21 (66%) 11 (34%) |
Pre-emptive transplantation [#] (%) | 7 (22%) |
Patients on dialysis before KTx [#] (%) | 24 (75%) |
Type of dialysis Hemodialysis Peritoneal |
14 (56%) 10 (32%) |
Stents in place [week] (median + range) | 5 (2 – 11) |
right-click to download