2000
DOI: 10.1097/00005392-200002000-00012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Successful Long-Term Outcome Using Existing Native Cutaneous Ureterostomy for Renal Transplant Drainage

Abstract: Of the complications that we present only 1 may be attributed to the singularity of our procedure. Our experience suggests that a preexisting native cutaneous ureterostomy may serve as a receptacle for transplant ureteral drainage in select patients with excellent long-term function.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 8 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…After the initial description of its use in adult kidney transplant patients in 1951, the modification suggested by Lich in 1977 of creating a terminal loop cutaneous ureterostomy has been shown to have long‐term success without stenosis in adult patients and one pediatric patient . In addition, for patients with a pre‐existing cutaneous ureterostomy, an end‐to‐side anastomosis of the transplant ureter to the native ureter is a good alternative . The two patients in this series with ureterostomy stenosis had stenosis at the fascial level, rather than the skin level.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…After the initial description of its use in adult kidney transplant patients in 1951, the modification suggested by Lich in 1977 of creating a terminal loop cutaneous ureterostomy has been shown to have long‐term success without stenosis in adult patients and one pediatric patient . In addition, for patients with a pre‐existing cutaneous ureterostomy, an end‐to‐side anastomosis of the transplant ureter to the native ureter is a good alternative . The two patients in this series with ureterostomy stenosis had stenosis at the fascial level, rather than the skin level.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%