Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Jan 29;1(1):CD011455.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011455.pub2.

Early versus late ureteric stent removal after kidney transplantation

Emily R Thompson  1 , Sarah A Hosgood, Michael L Nicholson, Colin H Wilson
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Early versus late ureteric stent removal after kidney transplantation

Emily R Thompson et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage kidney disease. In a previous review we concluded that the routine use of ureteric stents in kidney transplantation reduces the incidence of major urological complications (MUC). Unfortunately, this reduction appears to lead to a concomitant rise in urinary tract infections (UTI). For kidney recipients UTI is now the commonest post-transplant complication. This represents a considerable risk to the immunosuppressed transplant recipient, particularly in the era of increased immunologically challenging transplants. There are a number of different approaches taken when considering ureteric stenting and these are associated with differing degrees of morbidity and hospital cost.

Objectives: This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of early versus late removal of the ureteric stent in kidney transplant recipients.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 27 March 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

Selection criteria: All RCTs and quasi-RCTs were included in our meta-analysis. We included recipients of kidney transplants regardless of demography (adults or children) or the type of stent used.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors reviewed the identified studies to ascertain if they met inclusion criteria. We designated removal of a ureteric stent before the third postoperative week (< day 15) or during the index transplant admission as "early" removal. The studies were assessed for quality using the risk of bias tool. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of MUC. Further outcomes of interest were the incidence of UTI, idiosyncratic stent-related complications, hospital-related costs and adverse events. A subgroup analysis was performed examining the difference in complications reported depending on the type of ureteric stent used; bladder indwelling (BI) versus per-urethral (PU). Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Main results: Five studies (1127 patients) were included in our analysis. Generally the risk of bias of the included studies was judged low or unclear; they addressed the research question and utilised a prospective randomised design. It is uncertain whether early stent removal verus late stent removal improved the incidence of MUC (5 studies, 1127 participants: RR 1.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 5.71; I2 = 21%; low certainty evidence). The incidence of UTI may be reduced in the early stent removal group (5 studies, 1127 participants: RR 0.49 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; I2 = 59%; moderate certainty evidence). This possible reduction in the UTI incidence was only apparent if a BI stent was used, (3 studies, 539 participants, RR 0.45 95% CI 0.29 to 0.70; I2 = 13%; moderate certainty evidence). However, if an externalised PU stent was used there was no discernible difference in UTI incidence between the early and late group (2 studies, 588 participants: RR 0.60 95% CI 0.17, 2.03; I2 = 83%; low certainty evidence). Data on health economics and quality of life outcomes were lacking.

Authors' conclusions: Early removal of ureteric stents following kidney transplantation may reduce the incidence of UTI while it uncertain if there is a higher risk of MUC. BI stents are the optimum method for achieving this benefit.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

  1. Emily Thompson: none known

  2. Sarah Hosgood: none known

  3. Michael Nicholson: none known

  4. Colin Wilson: none known

Figures

1
1
Flow chart of study selection
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011455

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Gunawansa 2011 {published data only}
    1. Gunawansa N, Cassim R, Abeydeera A, Wijeyaratne M. Early bedside removal versus late cystoscopic removal of ureteric stents following renal transplantation; Does it make a difference? [abstract no: P‐41]. American Journal of Transplantation 2011;11(Suppl 1):73. [EMBASE: 70329005]
    1. Gunawansa N, Cassim R, Abeydheera A, Wijeyaratne M. Early bedside removal versus late cystoscopic removal of ureteric stents following renal transplantation; does it make a difference? [abstract no: P‐241]. Transplant International 2011;24(Suppl 2):288. [EMBASE: 70528137]
    1. Gunawansa N, Wijeyaratne M, Cassim R, Sahabandu C. Early bedside removal versus delayed cystoscopic removal of ureteric stents following live donor renal transplantation: a randomized prospective study [abstract no: O323]. Transplant International 2015;28(Suppl 4):118. [EMBASE: 72111563]
Huang 2012 {published data only}
    1. Huang L, Wang X, Ma Y, Wang J, Tao X, Liao L, et al. A comparative study of 3‐week and 6‐week duration of double‐J stent placement in renal transplant recipients. Urologia Internationalis 2012;89(1):89‐92. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Indu 2012 {published data only}
    1. Indu KN, Lakshminarayana G, Anil M, Rajesh R, George K, Ginil K, et al. Is early removal of prophylactic ureteric stents beneficial in live donor renal transplantation?. Indian Journal of Nephrology 2012;22(4):275‐9. [MEDLINE: ] - PMC - PubMed
Parapiboon 2012 {published data only}
    1. Parapiboon W, Ingsathit A, Disthabanchong S, Nongnuch A, Jearanaipreprem A, Charoenthanakit C, et al. Impact of early ureteric stent removal and cost‐benefit analysis in kidney transplant recipients: results of a randomized controlled study. Transplantation Proceedings 2012;44(3):737‐9. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
    1. Parapiboon W, Ingsathit A, Jirasiritham S, Sumethkul V. High incidence of bacteriuria in early post‐kidney transplantation; results from a randomized controlled study. Transplantation Proceedings 2012;44(3):734‐6. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
    1. Parapiboon W, Ingsathit A, Junchotikul P, Wiengpon K, Viseshsindh W, Leenanupunth C, et al. Early ureteric stent removal reduces urinary tract infection in kidney transplant recipients, a randomized controlled trial (EUREKA) [abstract no: O‐155]. Transplant International 2011;24(Suppl 2):43. [EMBASE: 70527232]
TrUST 2017 {published data only}
    1. Olsburgh J. Clinical study protocol: TrUST Transplant Ureteric Stent Trial Protocol version 2. 2010. www.isrctn.com/editorial/retrieveFile/81979356‐1fe4‐4b96‐bc2b‐35b7afa4ff... (date accessed 23 August 2017).
    1. Patel P, Rebollo‐Mesa I, Banga N, MacDougall I, Webb M, Mamode N, et al. TrUST (Transplant Ureteric Stent Trial): early versus standard removal [abstract]. European Urology Supplements 2014;13(1):e1010. [EMBASE: 71486000]
    1. Patel P, Rebollo‐Mesa I, Banga N, MacDougall I, Webb M, Mamode N, et al. TrUST (Transplant Ureteric Stent Trial): early versus standard removal [abstract]. Journal of Urology 2014;191(4 Suppl 1):e775‐6. [EMBASE: 71402065]
    1. Patel P, Rebollo‐Mesa I, Banga N, Macdougall I, Webb M, Mamode N, et al. TrUST (Transplant Ureteric Stent Trial): early versus standard removal. A randomised controlled trial [abstract]. Transplantation 2014;98(Suppl 1):638. [EMBASE: 71545698]
    1. Patel P, Rebollo‐Mesa I, Ryan E, Sinha MD, Marks SD, Banga N, et al. Prophylactic ureteric stents in renal transplant recipients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial of early versus late removal. American Journal of Transplantation 2017;17(8):2129‐38. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Yari 2014 {published data only}
    1. Yari H, Aliasgari FD, Tara SA, Argani H, Alirezaii A. Benefits and complications of removing the ureteral stent in renal transplantation based on the time interval from transplantation surgery [abstract]. International Journal of Urology 2014;21(Suppl 2):A265. [EMBASE: 71768475]

References to ongoing studies

ACTRN12610000349044 {published data only}
    1. Bartlett A. Pilot study: prospective randomized controlled trial of ureteric JJ stenting with early vs standard stent removal to improve graft and patient outcome and reduce urological complications after renal transplantation. www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12610000349044.aspx (first received 30 April 2010).
ISRCTN51276329 {published data only}
    1. Saeb‐Parsy K. A single centre, open label, randomised controlled study to compare the incidence of urinary tract infections and urological complications among renal transplant recipients who have a ureteric stent removed 6‐8 days versus 4‐6 weeks post renal transplantation. www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN51276329 (first received 26 October 2014).

Additional references

Bardapure 2014
    1. Bardapure M, Sharma A, Hammad A. Forgotten ureteric stents in renal transplant recipients: three case reports. Saudi Journal of Kidney Diseases & Transplantation 2014; Vol. 25, issue 1:109‐12. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
GRADE 2008
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck‐Ytter Y, Alonso‐Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924‐6. [MEDLINE: ] - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐60. [MEDLINE: ] - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Montgomery 2012
    1. Montgomery JR, Berger JC, Warren DS, James NT, Montgomery RA, Segev DL. Outcomes of ABO‐incompatible kidney transplantation in the United States. Transplantation 2012; Vol. 93, issue 6:603‐9. [MEDLINE: ] - PMC - PubMed
Morris‐Stiff 1998
    1. Morris‐Stiff G, Balaji V, Lord RH. Simple technique for non‐operative removal of ureteric stents after renal transplantation. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 1998; Vol. 80, issue 5:370‐1. [MEDLINE: ] - PMC - PubMed
Nicholson 1991
    1. Nicholson ML, Veitch PS, Donnelly PK, Bell PR. Urological complications of renal transplantation: the impact of double J ureteric stents. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 1991; Vol. 73, issue 5:316‐21. [MEDLINE: ] - PMC - PubMed
Olsburgh 2010
    1. Olsburgh J. Clinical study protocol: TrUST Transplant Ureteric Stent Trial Protocol version 2. 2010. www.isrctn.com/editorial/retrieveFile/81979356‐1fe4‐4b96‐bc2b‐35b7afa4ff... (accessed 23 August 2017).
Schünemann 2011a
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 11: Presenting results and 'Summary of findings' tables. In: Higgins JP, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Schünemann 2011b
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JP, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Siparsky 2011
    1. Siparsky NF, Kushnir LF, Gallichio MH, Conti DJ. Ureteral stents: a risk factor for polyomavirus BK viremia in kidney transplant recipients undergoing protocol screening. Transplantation Proceedings 2011;43(7):2641‐4. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Thiyagarajan 2012
    1. Thiyagarajan UM, Thiyagarajan P, Bagul A, Nicholson ML. Early removal of ureteric stents and its impact on reducing the urinary infection in renal transplantation‐A single centre experience. www.journal‐surgery.net/article/S1743‐9191(12)00583‐3/pdf (accessed 23 August 2017).
Waters 2008
    1. Waters SL, Heaton K, Siggers JH, Bayston R, Bishop M, Cummings LJ, et al. Ureteric stents: investigating flow and encrustation. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H ‐ Journal of Engineering in Medicine 2008; Vol. 222, issue 4:551‐61. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Wilson 2013
    1. Wilson CH, Rix DA, Manas DM. Routine intraoperative ureteric stenting for kidney transplant recipients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004925.pub3] - DOI - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Wilson 2015
    1. Wilson CH, Hosgood SA, Nicholson ML. Early versus late ureteric stent removal after kidney transplantation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011455] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources