Nuño-Díaz D, Brizuela-Araujo CA, Medina-Toscano F

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 104-108
PDF size: 275.06 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Today, 6% of causes of renal failure comes from lower urinary tract anomalies, such as neurogenic bladder, microbladder, urothelial neoplasia, urethral valves with bladder fibrosis. The most used technique for bladder reconstruction is an Ileal patch at 25-40 cm from ileocecal valve. Herein, we present a 26-year-old patient, who is in kidney receptor donor brain death protocol, with a history of cystoplasty. The objective of this study is to evaluate the evolution and outcome of kidney transplantation in a patient previously operated on for cystoplasty. Material and Methods: Patient undergoing kidney transplantation with history of ileal patch cystoplasty and urethral stenosis under current medical management with Johansson’s plasty. Results: Deceased donor Kidney transplant was carried out and Lich-Gregoir type ureteral reimplantation with placement of catheter JJ in renal graft plus closure of vesicocutaneous fistula. In the postoperative evolution the patient required hemodialysis sessions for one month due to acute tubular necrosis. Currently the patient shows good clinical evolution, without renal replacement therapy, in management by the nephrology service with periodic monitoring. Conclusions: Cystoplasty with ileal patch is currently the technique most used for the correction of this pathology with excellent results in the immediate postsurgical, in the restoration of renal function with a greater survival of 90% at five years and in improving renal function up to 80% of patients. In this presentation we conclude that the cystoplasty for patients who are candidates for kidney transplantation microcisto continues to be a viable option that allows the procedure, improves kidney function and quality of life in these patients.

REFERENCES

1. Martínez PF, Capiel L, Favre G, Bergero MA, González MI, Giúdice CR et al. Transplante renal en pacientes con derivación urinaria intestinal y cistoplastias de ampliación. Rev Arg de Urol. 2010; 75 (1): 14-21.

2. Argüelles-Salido E, Barrero-Candau R, Torrubia-Romero FJ, Cruz-Navarro N, Leal-Arenas J, Montañés-Medina P. Ampliación vesical y derivación urinaria en pacientes candidatos a trasplante renal. Arch Esp Urol. 2004; 57 (7): 699-705.

3. Biers SM, Venn SN, Greenwell TJ. The past, present and future of augmentation cystoplasty. BJU Int. 2012; 109 (9): 1280-93.

4. Greenwell TJ, Venn SN, Mundy AR. Augmentation cystoplasty. BJU Int. 2001; 88 (6): 511-525.

5. Alapont-Alacreu JM, Pacheco-Bru JJ, Pontones-Moreno JL, Alonso-Gorrea M, Sánchez-Plumed J, Jiménez-Cruz FJ. Trasplante renal en pacientes con enterocistoplastia. Actas Urol Esp. 2003; 27 (4): 281-285.

6. Power R, O’Malley K, Khan M, Murphy D, Hicket D. Renal trasplantation in patients with an augmentation cystoplasty. BJUI. 2000; 86 (1): 28-31.

7. McInerney PD, Picramenos D, Koffman CG, Mundy AR. Is cystoplasty a safe alternative to urinary diversion in patients requiring renal transplantation? Eur Urol. 1995; 27 (2): 117-120.

8. Hinman F Jr. Selection of intestinal segments for bladder substitution: physical and physiological characteristics. J Urol. 1988; 139 (3): 519-523.

9. Basiri A, Otookesh H, Hosseini R, Simforoosh N, Moghaddam SM. Kidney transplantation before or after augmentation cystoplasty in children with high-pressure neurogenic bladder. BJU Int. 2009; 103 (1): 86-88; discussion 88.

10. Power R, O’Malley K, Khan M, Murphy D, Hicket D. Renal trasplantation in patients with an augmentation cystoplasty. BJUI. 2000; 86 (1): 28-31.

11. Argüelles-Salido E, Barrero-Candau R, Torrubia-Romero FJ, Cruz-Navarro N, Leal-Arenas J, Montañés-Medina P. Ampliación vesical y derivación urinaria en pacientes candidatos a trasplante renal. Arch Esp Urol. 2004; 57 (7): 699-705.

12. Higuchi TT, Granberg CF, Fox JA, Husmann DA. Augmentation cystoplasty and risk of neoplasia: fact, fiction and controversy. J Urol. 2010; 184 (6): 2492-2496.