1
|
Yamanaka K, Kakuta Y, Nakazawa S, Kobayashi K, Nonomura N, Kageyama S. Surgical and Infectious Complications Following Kidney Transplantation: A Contemporary Review. J Clin Med 2025; 14:3307. [PMID: 40429301 PMCID: PMC12112604 DOI: 10.3390/jcm14103307] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2025] [Revised: 04/24/2025] [Accepted: 05/02/2025] [Indexed: 05/29/2025] Open
Abstract
Kidney transplantation significantly improves outcomes in patients with end-stage renal disease; however, postoperative complications remain a substantial concern. This review summarizes the incidence, risk factors, and management strategies for common complications after kidney transplantation. Reported incidence varies widely due to differences in definitions, diagnostic methods, and study designs. Ureteral stenosis occurs in 2.8-18.0% of recipients, vesicoureteral reflux in 0.5-86%, and urinary leakage in 1.1-7.2%. Lymphatic complications, including lymphocele and lymphorrhea, range from 0.6% to 35.2%, with one-third of complications requiring intervention. The incidence of urinary tract infections ranges from 20 to 43%, while asymptomatic bacteriuria is reported in up to 53% of recipients. Surgical site infections have a median incidence of 3.7%, and incisional hernias develop in 2.5-10% of cases, depending on follow-up duration. Vascular complications affect approximately 10% of recipients, with renal artery stenosis and thrombosis being the most prevalent. Neurologic complications, such as femoral nerve palsy and immunosuppression-related neurotoxicity, though less frequent, can impair recovery. Management strategies vary depending on severity, ranging from observation to surgical intervention. Preventive measures-including optimized ureteral stenting protocols, early catheter removal, careful immunosuppression, and appropriate antimicrobial use-play a crucial role in reducing complication risk. Despite advances in transplantation techniques and perioperative care, these complications continue to affect graft survival and patient outcomes. Further research is needed to standardize definitions and establish evidence-based protocols.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kazuaki Yamanaka
- Department of Urology, Shiga University of Medical Science, Otsu 520-2192, Japan; (K.K.); (S.K.)
- Department of Urology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 565-0871, Japan; (Y.K.); (S.N.); (N.N.)
| | - Yoichi Kakuta
- Department of Urology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 565-0871, Japan; (Y.K.); (S.N.); (N.N.)
| | - Shigeaki Nakazawa
- Department of Urology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 565-0871, Japan; (Y.K.); (S.N.); (N.N.)
| | - Kenichi Kobayashi
- Department of Urology, Shiga University of Medical Science, Otsu 520-2192, Japan; (K.K.); (S.K.)
| | - Norio Nonomura
- Department of Urology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 565-0871, Japan; (Y.K.); (S.N.); (N.N.)
| | - Susumu Kageyama
- Department of Urology, Shiga University of Medical Science, Otsu 520-2192, Japan; (K.K.); (S.K.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Neitzel E, Stearns J, Guido J, Porter K, Whetten J, Lammers L, vanSonnenberg E. Iatrogenic vascular complications of non-vascular percutaneous abdominal procedures. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2024; 49:4074-4091. [PMID: 38849536 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04381-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2024] [Revised: 05/06/2024] [Accepted: 05/11/2024] [Indexed: 06/09/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this paper is to compile and present all of the reported vascular complications that resulted from common non-vascular abdominal procedures in the literature. Non-vascular procedures include, though are not limited to, percutaneous abscess/fluid collection drainage (PAD), percutaneous nephrostomy (PN), paracentesis, percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC)/percutaneous biliary drainage (PBD), percutaneous biliary stone removal, and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PG)/percutaneous radiologic gastrojejunostomy (PG-J). By gathering this information, radiologists performing these procedures can be aware of the associated vascular injuries, as well as take steps to minimize risks. METHODS A literature review was conducted using the PubMed database to catalog relevant articles, published in the year 2000 onward, in which an iatrogenic vascular complication occurred from the following non-vascular abdominal procedures: PAD, PN, paracentesis, PTC/PBD, percutaneous biliary stone removal, and PG/PG-J. Biopsy and tumor ablation were deferred from this article. RESULTS 214 studies met criteria for analysis. 28 patients died as a result of vascular complications from the analyzed non-vascular abdominal procedures. Vascular complications from paracentesis were responsible for 19 patient deaths, followed by four deaths from PTC/PBD, three from biliary stone removal, and two from PG. CONCLUSION Despite non-vascular percutaneous abdominal procedures being minimally invasive, vascular complications still can arise and be quite serious, even resulting in death. Through the presentation of vascular complications associated with these procedures, interventionalists can improve patient care by understanding the steps that can be taken to minimize these risks and to reduce complication rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Easton Neitzel
- University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, 475 N 5th St, HSEB C523, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA.
| | - Jack Stearns
- University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, 475 N 5th St, HSEB C523, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA
| | - Jessica Guido
- University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, 475 N 5th St, HSEB C523, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA
| | - Kaiden Porter
- University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, 475 N 5th St, HSEB C523, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA
| | - Jed Whetten
- University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, 475 N 5th St, HSEB C523, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA
| | - Luke Lammers
- University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, 475 N 5th St, HSEB C523, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA
| | - Eric vanSonnenberg
- University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, 475 N 5th St, HSEB C523, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Percutaneous Nephrostomy in the Treatment of Hydronephrosis in Renal Transplant Patients - Case Report. PRILOZI (MAKEDONSKA AKADEMIJA NA NAUKITE I UMETNOSTITE. ODDELENIE ZA MEDICINSKI NAUKI) 2022; 43:55-60. [PMID: 36473044 DOI: 10.2478/prilozi-2022-0036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Percutaneous nephrostomy is a first-line minimal invasive treatment option for ureteral obstruction following kidney transplantation, with high effectiveness and a low complication rate. Percutaneous nephrostomy might be used as a temporary salvage therapy, providing acute decompression of the kidney collecting system and preventing graft loss. It can also function as a permanent and sometimes only possible option in transplant patients with frequent recurrences of ureteral stenosis who either fail an open surgical reconstruction or who are not good candidates for these procedures. We present two patients with acute decline in urine output after renal transplantation with radiologically verified hydroureteronephrosis of the transplanted kidney (graft) caused by stenosis of distal ureter. In both cases, nephrostomy was placed within 48 hours as a temporary salvage treatment that ameliorates renal function and prevents graft loss. The permanent nephrostomy was the only possible solution for the preservation of the graft's function in the first case because of the recurrences of ureteral stenosis after several percutaneous interventions and open-surgery ureteral reconstruction. A few episodes of nephrostomy tube-related infections were resolved with antibiotics in the first case. The second case was treated with open ureteroneocystostomy with resection of stenotic segment and reinsertion of the ureter into the bladder (ureterocystoneostomy) because of the length of the involved ureteral segment. Both patients had stable graft function in the follow-up period.
Collapse
|
4
|
Uslu A, Cayhan VK, Simsek C, Aykas A, Karatas M, Tarcan IC, Okut G, Tatar E. Tubular vesicopyelostomy for the management of types 2 and 3 (long-segment) ureteric stenosis after kidney transplantation. Int J Artif Organs 2018; 42:3-8. [PMID: 30182796 DOI: 10.1177/0391398818796346] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Late ureteral stenosis following kidney transplantation needs immediate correction in order to protect allograft function and requires a complicated surgical procedure. In this study, we present the long-term results of tubular bladder reconfiguration and cystopyelostomy (tubular vesicopyelostomy), an innovative and practical procedure for the management of long-segment ureteric stenosis (types 2 and 3) after transplantation. Between 2002 and 2017, 722 kidney transplant patients were monitored at the University of Medical Sciences, Bozyaka Organ Transplantation and Research Center. Twenty-eight of these patients underwent tubular vesicopyelostomy operation; 17 male and 11 female patients with a mean age of 45.6 ± 10.5 years. Time to surgical intervention for urinary tract obstruction was 122.5 ± 114.7 months. The mean serum creatinine values previous to and 3 days following the tubular vesicopyelostomy operation were 3.46 ± 1.5 mg/dL and 1.75 ± 0.7 mg/dL, respectively (p < 0.0001). Within a mean follow-up period of 55.1 ± 40.9 months, functional grafts were recorded in 22 patients with a mean serum creatinine value of 1.92 ± 0.8 mg/dL. Only one patient developed anastomotic stenosis after the tubular vesicopyelostomy procedure, giving an overall success rate for tubular vesicopyelostomy of 96.4%. Six patients returned to hemodialysis. In five, the underlying etiology was not related to recurrent obstruction or surgical complications. Sixteen patients underwent allograft biopsy after the operation, but features of tubulointerstitial nephritis were seen in only one. Tubular vesicopyelostomy operation is a safe and successful method for the surgical treatment of late and complicated ureteral obstructions with excellent long-term results. It may be a good, practical alternative to other more sophisticated surgical options.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adam Uslu
- 1 Department of General Surgery and Transplantation, University of Health Sciences, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Veli Kursat Cayhan
- 1 Department of General Surgery and Transplantation, University of Health Sciences, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Cenk Simsek
- 1 Department of General Surgery and Transplantation, University of Health Sciences, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Aykas
- 1 Department of General Surgery and Transplantation, University of Health Sciences, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Murat Karatas
- 1 Department of General Surgery and Transplantation, University of Health Sciences, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Ismail Can Tarcan
- 1 Department of General Surgery and Transplantation, University of Health Sciences, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Gokalp Okut
- 1 Department of General Surgery and Transplantation, University of Health Sciences, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| | - Erhan Tatar
- 2 Department of Internal Nephrology, University of Health Sciences, Izmir Bozyaka Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Simsek C, Dogan S, Piskin T, Okut G, Cayhan K, Aykas A, Tatar E, Uslu A. Should Interventional Radiology or Open Surgery Be the First Choice for the Management of Ureteric Stenosis After Transplantation? Dual-Center Study. Transplant Proc 2017; 49:517-522. [DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2017.01.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
|
6
|
Stewart JK, Smith TP, Kim CY. Clinical implications of acute pelvicaliceal hematoma formation during percutaneous catheter nephrostomy insertion. Clin Imaging 2017; 43:180-183. [PMID: 28342336 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.02.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2016] [Revised: 02/21/2017] [Accepted: 02/24/2017] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine the clinical implications of acute pelvicaliceal hematoma formation during percutaneous catheter nephrostomy (PCN) insertion. METHODS Collecting system hematoma burden was retrospectively assessed for 694 PCN insertions in 502 patients. RESULTS Pelvicaliceal hematoma formation occurred in 146 kidneys (21%) in 136 patients. Clinically significant blood loss occurred in 3 patients with hematomas within one week compared to 4 patients without hematomas (p=0.39). Twenty-four patients with hematomas underwent catheter exchange within one week, compared to 55 patients without hematomas (p=0.49). CONCLUSION Pelvicaliceal hematoma formation after PCN insertion is not uncommon and is associated with very rare clinical sequelae.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica K Stewart
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Hospital, Box 3808 DUMC, Durham, NC 27710, United States.
| | - Tony P Smith
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Hospital, Box 3808 DUMC, Durham, NC 27710, United States.
| | - Charles Y Kim
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Hospital, Box 3808 DUMC, Durham, NC 27710, United States.
| |
Collapse
|