Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative study of one-stitch versus Lich-Gregoir ureterovesical implantation for kidney transplants

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To compare the outcomes of standard Lich-Gregoir technique and a modified one-stitch technique of ureteroneocystostomy in renal transplantation.

Patients and methods

Data from 645 transplant recipients by two different ureteroneocystostomy techniques were retrospectively reviewed at the first Affiliated Hospital, Medical College of Xi’an Jiaotong University, between January 2002 and December 2007.

Results

There were 418 recipients in the Lich-Gregoir group and 227 in new one-stitch group. The overall ureteral complication rate for new one-stitch technique was 19.8 % (n = 45) as opposed to 15.79 % (n = 66) for the Lich-Gregoir technique. No significantly different rate of ureteral complications occurred in two groups (P > 0.05). In comparison, there was a higher proportion of hematuria at the limit of statistical significance in new one-stitch group (P < 0.05). Average operative time for the modified one-stitch and Lich-Gregoir techniques was 8.8 ± 1.4 and 21.9 ± 6.1 min, respectively (P < 0.05). Urinary tract infections, delayed graft function and rejection rates were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Although the modified one-stitch technique may predispose patients to higher rates of hematuria, it has no significant difference in ureteral complications compared with the Lich-Gregoir group. Based on this large series and data analyses, we believe that this new technique will become one of our multiple choices in our setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Makisalo H, Eklund B, Salmela K et al (1997) Urological complications after 2084 consecutive kidney transplantation. Transpl Proc 29(1–2):152–153

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hakim NS, Benedetti E, Pirenne J et al (1994) Complications of ureterovesical anastomosis in kidney transplant patients: the Minnesota experience. Clin Transpl 8(6):504–507

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kayler L, Kang D, Molmenti E et al (2010) Kidney transplant ureteroneocystostomy techniques and complications: review of the literature. Transpl Proc 42(5):1413–1420

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pleass HC, Clark KR, Rigg KM et al (1995) Urologic complications after renal transplantation: a prospective randomized trial comparing different techniques of ureteric anastomosis and the use of prophylactic ureteric stents. Transpl Proc 27(1):1091–1092

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Butterworth PC, Horsburgh T, Veitch PS et al (1997) Urological complications in renal transplantation: impact of a change of technique. Br J Urol 79(4):499–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Modlin CS, Flechner SM, Boparari N et al (2000) U-stitch ureteroneocystostomy, a new renal transplantation ureteral reimplantation technique associated with reduced urologic complications. Tech Urol 6(1):1–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee RS, Bakthavatsalam R, Marsh CL et al (2007) Ureteral complications in renal transplantation: a comparison of the Lich-Gregoir versus the Taguchi technique. Transpl Proc 39:1461–1464

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Moreira P, Parada B, Figueiredo A et al (2007) Comparative study between two techniques of ureteroneocystostomy: Taguchi and Lich-Gregoir. Transpl Proc 39(8):2480–2482

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gregoir W (1962) Congenital vesico-ureteral reflux. Acta Urol Belg 30:286–300

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lich R Jr, Howerton LW, Davis LA (1961) Childhood urosepsis. J Ky Med Assoc 59:1177–1179

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shanfield I (1972) New experimental methods for implantation of the ureter in bladder and conduit. Transpl Proc 4(4):637–638

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. MacKinnon KJ, Oliver JA, Morehouse DD et al (1968) Cadaver renal transplantation: emphasis on urological aspects. J Urol 99(5):486–490

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Barry JM (1983) Unstented extravesical ureteroneocystostomy in kidney transplantation. J Urol 129(5):918–919

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Secin FP, Rovegno AR, Marrugat RE et al (2002) Comparing Taguchi and Lich-Gregoir ureterovesical reimplantation techniques for kidney transplants. J Urol 168(3):926–930

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zargar MA, Shahrokh H, Mohammadi Fallah MR et al (2005) Comparing Taguchi and anterior Lich-Gregoir ureterovesical reimplantation techniques for kidney transplantation. Transpl Proc 37(7):3077–3078

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Caparros J, Regalado RI, Sanchez-Martin F et al (1996) A simplified technique for ureteroneocystostomy in renal transplantation. World J Urol 14(4):236–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tzimas GN, Hayati H, Tchervenkov JI et al (2003) Ureteral implantation technique and urologic complications in adult kidney transplantation. Transpl Proc 35(7):2420–2422

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Delin G, Bulang H (1998) A new surgical technique of vesicoureteric anastomosis in renal transplants (80 reports). Transpl Proc 30(7):3010–3012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Satwekar R, Gandhi R (1992) Extravesical ureteroneocystostomies in kidney transplant: comparison between Lich-Gregoir and Barry’s technique in our first 50 kidney transplants (India). Transpl Proc 24(5):1873–1874

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gutierre Banos JL, Protillo Martin JA, Correas Gomez MA et al (1994) Extravesical ureteroneocystostomy in renal transplantation. Comparative study of the campose Freir’s and the Taguchi’s techniques (single point). Arch Esp Urol 47(4):393–398

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jeffrey LV, Yew J, David WG et al (2007) Long-term comparative outcomes between 2 common ureteroneocystostomy techniques for renal transplantation. J Urol 2(177):632–636

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dominguez J, Clase CM, Mahalati K et al (2000) Is routine ureteric stenting needed in kidney transplantation? A randomized trial. Transplantation 70(4):597–601

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wilson CH, Bhatti AA, Rix DA et al (2005) Routine intraoperative stenting for renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 80(7):877–882

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Moreira P, Parada B, Figueiredo A et al (2007) Comparative study between two techniques of ureteroneocystostomy: Taguchi and Lich-Gregoir. Transpl Proc 39(8):2480–2482

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tavakoli A, Surange RS, Pearson RC et al (2007) Impact of stents on urological complications and health care expenditure in renal transplant recipients: results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Urol 177(6):2260–2264

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hariharan S, Johnson CP, Bresnahan BA et al (2000) Improved graft survival after renal transplantation in the United States, 1988–1996. N Engl J Med 342(9):605–612

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Woodroffe R, Yao GL, Meads C et al (2005) Clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer immunosuppressive regimens in renal transplantation: a systematic review and modelling study. Health Technol Assess 9(21):1–179 Iii–iv

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Nie ZL, Zhang KQ, Li QS et al (2009) Urological complications in 1,223 kidney transplantations. Urol Int 83(3):337–341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Yigit B, Tellioglu G, Berber I et al (2008) Surgical treatment of urologic complications after renal transplantation. Transpl Proc 40(1):202–204

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Gao DY and her friends provided the illustrations. PAN XM and XUE WJ participated in the study design and the writing of the manuscript. PAN XM, XIANG HL, DING CG, LUO ZZ, TIAN PX and XUE WJ participated in the operation of transplantation. PAN XM and DING CG participated in the data analysis. This work was supported by the science and technology research and development program of Shaanxi province (No. 2013K12-18-04), and there are not any potential conflicts of interest for each author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Nephropathy, The First Affiliated Hospital, Medical College of Xi’an Jiaotong University, West 277 Yanta Road, Xi’an, 710061, Shaanxi, People’s Republic of China

    X. M. Pan, C. G. Ding, P. X. Tian & W. J. Xue

  2. Institute of Organ Transplantation, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, People’s Republic of China

    H. L. Xiang & Z. Z. Luo

Authors
  1. X. M. Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. L. Xiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. G. Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Z. Z. Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. X. Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. W. J. Xue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to X. M. Pan.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 125 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOC 37 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pan, X.M., Xiang, H.L., Ding, C.G. et al. Comparative study of one-stitch versus Lich-Gregoir ureterovesical implantation for kidney transplants. World J Urol 32, 1355–1361 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1217-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1217-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation