You have accessJournal of UrologyTransplantation & Vascular Surgery: Renal Transplantation & Vascular Surgery II1 Apr 2016MP32-01 PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROSTOMY PLACEMENT AFTER RENAL TRANSPLANTATION: INDICATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR LONG-TERM GRAFT SURVIVAL Jeffrey Pearl, Joshua Finkle, Mikin Patel, Thuong Van Ha, Jeffrey Leef, Kenneth Ogan, and Jonathan Lorenz Jeffrey PearlJeffrey Pearl More articles by this author , Joshua FinkleJoshua Finkle More articles by this author , Mikin PatelMikin Patel More articles by this author , Thuong Van HaThuong Van Ha More articles by this author , Jeffrey LeefJeffrey Leef More articles by this author , Kenneth OganKenneth Ogan More articles by this author , and Jonathan LorenzJonathan Lorenz More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.1296AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Urologic intervention after renal transplantation is a rare requirement often utilizing a multidisciplinary approach between interventional radiologists and urologists. Frequently, prior to definitive treatment of transplant ureteral obstruction or urinary leak, urinary diversion by percutaneous nephrostomy is required. The purpose of our study is to identify indications and factors predictive of long-term graft survival in patients requiring percutaneous nephrostomy placement after renal transplantation. METHODS A retrospective chart review was performed to identify renal transplant patients who underwent subsequent nephrostomy placement between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2015. Patient and procedure related variables, imaging of the transplant graft, and graft survival data were collected. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess our primary outcome, which was the relationship between factors surrounding nephrostomy placement and graft survival. RESULTS 51 patients received percutaneous nephrostomy tubes with a technical success rate of 98% and complication rate of 27%. Indications included ureteral stricture in 63%, urolithiasis in 25%, and urine leak in 12%. Median graft survival was 11.9 years (IQR 4.7 to 17.9 years) versus 10.5 years as reported in the general transplant population. Factors associated with worse graft survival included age greater than 60 years (HR 2.9 [CI 1.3-6.1, p<.05]), moderate or greater hydronephrosis (HR 3.8 [CI 1.5-9.8, p<.01]), serum creatinine (SCr) greater than 2 ng/dL (HR 5.3 [CI 1.3-22.4, p<.05]), no post-procedural drop in SCr (HR 2.8 [CI 1.3-6.0, p<.01]), and a nephrostomy related complication (HR 2.7 [CI 1.2-6.3, p<.05]). Patients with ureteral stricture had worse graft survival than those with stones (HR 6.4 [CI 1.9-21.7, p<.01]). Patients with stricture underwent either dilation by interventional radiology (28%), endourologic treatment (12.5%), open repair (9%), had graft failure or death prior to repair (12.5%), or did not undergo repair (38%). There was not a significant difference in graft survival between types of stricture repair. CONCLUSIONS Renal transplant patients requiring nephrostomy have similar graft survival compared to the general transplant population. In our population, ureteral stricture was the most common indication for nephrostomy tube, and a variety of approaches were implemented for repair without significant differences in graft survival. Multiple patient-related factors may be predictive of long-term graft survival in this setting. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e427-e428 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Jeffrey Pearl More articles by this author Joshua Finkle More articles by this author Mikin Patel More articles by this author Thuong Van Ha More articles by this author Jeffrey Leef More articles by this author Kenneth Ogan More articles by this author Jonathan Lorenz More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...