Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2024 Apr 17;42(1):239. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-04934-1

Multicenter evaluation of complex urinary diversion for renal transplantation: outcomes of complex surgical solutions

Luka Flegar 1,✉, Johannes Huber 1, Juliane Putz 2, Christian Thomas 2, Hendrik Apel 3,4, Bernd Wullich 3,4, Frank Friedersdorff 5, Guido Fechner 6, Manuel Ritter 6, Karoline Kernig 7, Karl Weigand 8, Hans Heynemann 8, Michael Stöckle 9, Philip Zeuschner 9; the Working Group Kidney Transplantation of the German Association of Urology
PMCID: PMC11023965  PMID: 38630278

Abstract

Purpose

An abnormal lower urinary tract poses significant challenges for transplant surgeons. Besides the ureteral anastomosis to an ileal conduit, there are diverse complex reconstructive solutions. Due to its rarity, standardization and teaching of complex urinary diversion is extremely difficult.

Methods

The indications and outcomes of complex urinary diversions after kidney transplantation (KT) were retrospectively investigated at eight urologic transplant centers including a current follow-up.

Results

Of 37 patients with 21 (56%) males, vesicoureteral reflux (24%), spina bifida (22%), and glomerulonephritis (12%) were the most common causes of terminal renal failure. In 30 (81%) patients, urinary diversion was performed before KT, at a median of 107.5 (range, 10; 545) months before. Transplantations were held at a median patient age of 43 (10; 68) years, including six (16%) living donations. Urinary diversion was modified during 12 (32%) transplantations. After KT, the ileal conduit was the most common incontinent urinary diversion in 25 (67%) patients; a Mainz pouch I and bladder augmentation were the most frequent continent diversions (each n = 3). At a median follow-up of 120 months (range 0; 444), 12 (32%) patients had a graft failure with a 5-year graft survival of 79% (95%CI 61; 90). The median overall survival was 227 months (168; 286) and the 5-year overall survival 89% (69.3; 96.4).

Conclusion

The mid-term kidney transplant function with complex urinary diversion appears to be comparable to transplants with regular urinary diversions. Hence, complex urinary diversion should always be considered as a surgical option, even during transplantation, if necessary.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-024-04934-1.

Keywords: Dialysis, Kidney transplantation, Urinary diversion, Renal insufficiency, Ileal conduit

Introduction

Renal transplantation was first successfully performed in Boston in 1954. It represents the preferred and most effective treatment option for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) [1]. Approximately 6% of kidney transplant patients experience terminal renal insufficiency due to congenital abnormalities, such as urethral valves, vesicoureteral reflux, neurogenic bladder disorders, prune-belly syndrome or other rare syndromes [2, 3]. These anomalies account for a quarter of all terminal renal insufficiencies in pediatric patients and 15% in adults [4].

The treatment of these patients with anatomical or functional lower urinary lower tract dysfunction poses great challenges for renal transplant surgeons and requires careful consideration. On the one hand, congenital or acquired urological diseases not only contribute to native kidney failure but on the other hand can also adversely affect the outcome of renal transplantation. Therefore, restoring the normal function of the lower urinary tract is crucial. Advancements in lower urinary tract evaluation and management, including medical therapy and intermittent self-catheterization (ISC), alongside surgical procedures, can achieve this objective [5].

In this regard, a unique surgical milestone occurred in 1966, when Kelly and colleagues reported the first series of successful kidney transplantations in seven patients with ileal urinary diversion [6]. Before, having an intact natural lower urinary tract was considered essential for transplant eligibility to avoid infections or urosepsis in immunocompromised patients and to protect the renal allograft [7]. After the first report on the successful implantation of a kidney transplant into a colon conduit by Tunner et al. in 1971, the indications for complex urinary diversions in kidney transplantation have been continuously widened [8]. Today, many surgical options before or even during kidney transplantation (KT) appear to be viable solutions for complex situations in patients with urinary tract anomalies, including bladder augmentation, continent or incontinent urinary diversions using intestinal segments [9, 10].

However, data is scarce about the outcomes of these complex urinary diversions after KT. Therefore, we aimed to investigate their outcomes at eight urologic transplant centers, with a special focus on renal allograft function and patient survival, including a current follow-up.

Materials and methods

Patient cohort

This multi-institutional retrospective study included all patients with a KT and a complex urinary diversion from eight German tertiary referral centers. Complex urinary diversion was defined as the existence of a continent (Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy, neobladder, pouch) or incontinent (ileal or colon conduit, ureterocutaneostomy) urinary diversion with the graft attached to it.

Patient demographics including the underlying uro- and nephropathy were obtained, as well as the individual surgical history and urinary diversion before kidney transplantation. Regarding KT, its type, date and specifics were obtained. For each patient, a recent follow-up was conducted, including serum creatinine and glomerular filtration rate one, two, five- and ten-years post KT. Patient and death censored graft survival were estimated.

Statistical analysis and ethics statement

Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and proportions, continuous data as the median and range. Survival analyses were performed with the Kaplan Meier estimation method and were stratified by the timing of urinary diversion (before vs. after KT), the type of KT (living vs. brain dead donor) and type of urinary diversion (continent vs. incontinent); the respective groups were compared with log-rank tests. The statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 25 (IBM, Armonk, USA). This study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local responsible ethical review boards (reference 106–18).

Results

Of 37 patients with complex urinary diversions at eight German tertiary referral centers, 21 (57%) were male. Median BMI of all patients was 24.5 kg/m2 (range 16.0; 36.2) (Table 1). The most common causes of kidney insufficiency were vesicoureteral reflux (24%), spina bifida (22%) and glomerulonephritis (11%). In 30 (81%) patients, a urinary diversion had already been performed before kidney transplantation at a median patient age of 29 years (range 0; 62), at a median of 107.5 months (10; 545) earlier. The most common urinary diversion before KT was an ileal conduit (48.6%). Patients who had received urinary diversion before transplantation were less likely to have a history of urothelial carcinoma, were more likely to be female, and had fewer intraoperative complications. The groups were otherwise comparable (Table S1 in online supplement).

Table 1.

Patient characteristics of the analyzed cohort

n = 37
Age 43 (10; 68) years
Sex 21 (56.8%) male
BMI 24.5 kg/m2 (range 16.0; 36.2)
Donor 6 (16.2%) living kidney donations
Urinary diversion prior to KT performed 30 (81.1%)
Most common urinary diversion prior to KT ileal conduit (48.6%)
Modification of urinary diversion during KT 12 (32.4%)
Continent urinary diversion after KT 8 (21.6%)
Intraoperative complications 2 (5.4%)
Postoperative complications 7 (18.9%)
Serum creatinine at 2-years 1.5 mg/dl (range 0.5; 9.95)
Serum creatinine at 5-years 1.6 mg/dl (range 0.7; 10.1)
Graft failure 12 (32.4%)
Most common cause for graft failure 6 (50%) chronic rejections
Open in a new tab

The kidney transplantations were carried out between 1986 and 2023 at a median patient age of 43 years (range 10; 68), six (16.2%) KT were living kidney donations. During 12 (32.4%) KT, the urinary diversion was modified (see Fig. 1 precisely illustrating the modification of the urinary diversions during KT). One (3%) patient had a pre-existing ureterocutaneostomy which was changed to an ileal conduit, in another patient with an ileal conduit a ureterocutaneostomy was performed. One KT was held with a simultaneous bladder augmentation; in another KT, a Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy was created. In all other KT with simultaneous urinary diversion, ileal conduits were performed. Intraoperative complications (one bowel perforation and one urinary bladder perforation) occurred in two (5%) patients, while postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo 3b in four patients: spleen rupture, anastomotic insufficiency, wound dehiscence, perirenal hematoma) were reported in seven (19%) patients.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Sankey diagram illustrating how the urinary diversions were modified during KT

After KT, 8 (22%) patients had a continent urinary diversion, 3 (8%) had a Ileocecal (Mainz) Pouch, 3 (8%) a bladder augmentation, 1 (3%) a Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy and 1 (3%) an orthotopic neobladder. As incontinent urinary diversion, most patients had an ileal conduit (68%), 2 (5%) also a ureterocutaneostomy, and 2 (5%) a colon conduit.

Follow-up

At a median follow up of 120 months (range 0; 444), the serum creatinine was 1.5 mg/dl (range 0.5; 9.95) two years and 1.6 mg/dl (0.7; 10.1) five years post KT, the GFR was 46.6 ml/min/m2 (27.9; 90) and 44 (30; 83), respectively (Figure S1). Twelve (32.4%) patients had a graft failure at a median of 32 (0; 155) months after KT. The most common causes were chronic rejections in 6 (50%) cases, two were related with recurrent urinary tract infections. The median death censored graft survival was not reached, and the mean graft survival was 222.9 months (95%CI 170.8, 275.1) with a 1-year, 3- and 5-year death censored graft survival of 88.7% (95%CI 72.6; 95.6), 82.8% (65.6; 91.9) and 79.3% (61.3; 89.6), respectively (Fig. 2, Table 1). Two (5.4%) grafts were explanted at a median of 120 (83; 157) months after KT. The graft survival was neither impacted by the timing of urinary diversion (during vs. before KT, p = 0.2), nor by the type of urinary diversion (incontinent vs. continent, p = 0.2, Fig. 2). None of the patients receiving a living kidney donation had a graft loss; however, their graft survival was not significantly longer compared to dead donors (p = 0.1).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Death censored graft and patient survival of the analyzed cohort; the number of the respective patients at risk is indicated below

Within the follow up period, 10 (27%) patients have died and the median patient survival was 227 (95%CI 167.6; 286.4) months with a 1-year, 3- and 5-year overall survival of 96.7% (95%CI 80.4; 100), 93.2% (75.3; 98.2) and 89% (69.3; 96.4%), respectively (Table S2 in online supplement). The patient survival was neither impacted by the timing nor type of urinary diversion or the type of kidney transplantation (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Death censored graft survival (left column) and patient survival (right column), stratified by timing of urinary diversion (first row, before vs. during kidney transplantation), type of urinary diversion (second row, incontinent vs. continent urinary diversion) and type of kidney transplantation (third row, dead vs. living donor)

Discussion

The anatomically or functionally abnormal urinary tract poses significant challenges even to experienced kidney transplant surgeons. On the one hand, an abnormal urinary tract in kidney transplant recipients is a rare situation, as approximately only 1% of kidney transplantations are performed into patients with (prior) supravesical diversion or bladder augmentation. On the other hand, a kidney transplantation itself may be a complex surgical intervention [11–13]. Therefore, data is scarce about the mid- and long-term follow-up of kidney transplant patients with complex urinary diversion. In the present study, we investigated the outcomes of in total 37 kidney transplant patients with complex urinary diversion at eight urologic departments. In brief, most urological diversions were performed before surgery, and did not affect the mid- and long-term outcomes, which were comparable with those of transplants recipients with regular urinary diversions. This might be related with the fact, that all patients had their surgeries in urological departments exclusively.

In our cohort, the median age of the kidney recipients at the time of KT was 43 years, making them younger than the general recipients. Wolfe et al. reported that in the US, almost half of the patients awaiting renal transplants are older than 50 years [14]. While kidney transplantation can still be safely performed in older age groups, elderly recipients have shown to experience significantly lower graft and patient survival rates, along with a significantly higher risk of graft loss and patient mortality [15]. Furthermore, advancing age has also been associated with longer dialysis time. Aufhauser et al. demonstrated that patients with a pre-transplant dialysis time of ≥ 10 years had worse outcomes compared to those who were transplanted preemptively or with shorter time on dialysis [16]. This younger patient age in our cohort compared to most kidney transplantations can be explained with their underlying diseases, as one out of four patients in the present analysis had ESRD due to vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). In line with these results, Mattoo described VUR as the commonest congenital urinary tract abnormalities in childhood, which is diagnosed mostly after an episode of urinary tract infection (UTI) and is seen in 5.2% of transplanted patients and 3.5% of dialysis patients [17].

From this point of view, it is very encouraging that the functional results of these 37 patients were not only in line with published data, as the 5-year graft survival in the literature ranges between 65 and 75% [7, 12, 18–21]. The 5-year death censored graft survival rates within this cohort of 79.3% appeared to be even slightly superior to published data. This might be related with new immunosuppressive regimens, for instance, as some of the published cohorts are already 20 years old. However, the first kidney transplantation comprised within our cohort dated back to 1986 and the latest was performed in 2023. Moreover, according to recent analysis of the German Organ Procurement Organization from 2019, the 3-year overall survival of kidney transplant patients was 91.8% (95% CI 90.4%; 93.1%), and the graft survival 90.6% (89.1%; 91.9%), compared to an OS of 93.2% and graft survival of 83% within this cohort. Potentially, these excellent results might be related with a tight and well-organized urological follow-up.

Another important aspect to consider when analyzing the graft survival in patients with complex urinary diversions undergoing kidney transplantation surely is the timing of urinary diversion. In general, the urinary diversion can be performed (1) before, (2) simultaneously or (3) after kidney transplantation. Most studies recommend surgery for urinary diversion prior to KT since the absence of steroids and immunosuppressants enable improved wound healing [2, 20]. Consistent with these recommendations, 30 (81.1%) patients in our cohort received their urinary diversion before KT, at a median of 107.5 months (10; 545) earlier. Moreover, their graft survival was not impacted by the timing of kidney transplantation. However, other studies argue that urinary diversion after KT is associated with a lower risk of damaging important structures [2, 22]. It may even be considered necessary in some cases, such as when dealing with newly diagnosed bladder cancer due to immunosuppression [23]. In our cohort, intraoperative complications occurred only in two patients and therefore synchronous change of urinary diversions during KT seems also feasible.

Apart from the variations in timing for urinary diversion, we also observed a broad range of continent and incontinent urinary diversions in our patient cohort. While the ileal conduit was the most commonly performed urinary diversion in 25 patients (67%), there were also several other techniques included in our study cohort: a Mainz Pouch (8.1%), bladder augmentation (8.1%), a Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy (2.7%), and and orthotopic neobladder (2.7%). Additionally, one patient with a pre-existing ureterocutaneostomy received an ileal conduit during KT, while another patient with an ileal conduit obtained an ureterocutaneostomy. Despite the heterogeneity of these surgical approaches, they were found to be challenging yet technically feasible, with excellent and encouraging outcomes. In line with these results, Chaykovska et al. described a further urinary diversion with an ureteroureterostomy between the transplant and native ureter, which yielded favorable functional results [24].

Therefore, one has to note that our study clearly demonstrates that complex urinary diversions in renal transplantation, as described above, are generally feasible due to urological involvement in KT. However, there is a current trend among many transplant surgeons to argue that they do not necessarily need to be experienced in urologic urinary diversions. As a consequence, the role of urology in KT has significantly declined on an international level over the past decade [25, 26]. Nonetheless, it is essential to recognize that for patients with complex urological reconstructions, having urologists familiar with the anatomy and experienced in urological surgery can be highly advantageous and lead to optimal quality of care for this special patient group [25]. Urologists should also be integral members of a multidisciplinary team to participate in the initial evaluation and selection of potential recipients, as well as in postoperative care. This is particularly important since renal transplant recipients are often at increased risk of conditions such as benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), voiding dysfunction, and various other urological allograft-related complications [26–28].

While the current study provides valuable observations regarding complex urinary diversion for renal transplantation, it is essential to acknowledge its inherent limitations and to interpret the findings within the context of its retrospective, multi-institutional design. Additionally, the analysis was based on a small sample size, which should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.

To conclude, the absence of an intact lower urinary tract should clearly not be considered as a contraindication to a (successful) kidney transplant. Our data clearly demonstrates that complex urinary diversion allows a stable kidney function which is almost comparable to transplants with regular urinary diversions. Hence, complex urinary diversion should always be considered as a surgical option, even during transplantation, if necessary. In this special situation, a broad expertise in urological diversions appears to be not only helpful, but rather a prerequisite, wherefore at least in these situations a urological standby should be organized during surgery.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 111 KB) (111.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

All authors expect M. Ritter and G. Fechner are part of the Working Group Kidney Transplantation of the German Association of Urology.

The members of The Working Group Kidney Transplantation of the German Association of Urology are Luka Flegar, Johannes Huber, Juliane Putz, Christian Thomas, Hendrik Apel, Bernd Wullich, Frank Friedersdorff, Manuel Ritter, Karoline Kernig, Karl Weigand, Hans Heynemann, Michael Stöckle, Philip Zeuschner.

Abbreviations

BPH

Benign prostatic hypertrophy

DT

Dialysis time

ESRD

End-stage renal disease

ISC

Intermittent self-catheterization

KT

Kidney transplantation

VUR

Vesicoureteral reflux

Author contributions

Protocol/project development: PZ, LF. Data collection or management: JP, HA, FF, GF, KK, KW, HH, PZ, LF. Data analysis: PZ, LF. Manuscript writing/editing: PZ, LF. Supervision: CT, MR, FF, BW, JH, MS. Other (please specify briefly using 1 to 5 words).

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Informed consent and ethics approval

This work was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki in its latest version. No animal studies or other laboratory studies were performed. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest according to the current manuscript. All authors of this research paper directly participated in the planning, execution, or analysis of the study. All the authors of this paper have read and approved the final submitted version. The contents of this manuscript have not been copyrighted or previously published. The content of this manuscript is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Footnotes

The members of the Working Group Kidney Transplantation of the German Association of Urology are listed in Acknowledgements.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Luka Flegar, Email: luka.flegar@uk-gm.de.

the Working Group Kidney Transplantation of the German Association of Urology:

Luka Flegar, Johannes Huber, Juliane Putz, Christian Thomas, Hendrik Apel, Bernd Wullich, Frank Friedersdorff, Manuel Ritter, Karoline Kernig, Karl Weigand, Hans Heynemann, Michael Stöckle, and Philip Zeuschner

References

  • 1.Merrill JP, Murray JE, Harrison JH, Guild WR (1956) Successful homotransplantation of the human kidney between identical twins. J Am Med Assoc 160(4):277–282. 10.1001/jama.1956.02960390027008. (PMID: 13278189) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sikic D, Richterstetter M, Wullich B, Apel H (2020) Nierentransplantation in Harnableitungen [Renal transplantation in urinary diversions]. Urologe A 59(1):27–31. 10.1007/s00120-019-01093-9(PMID: 31858164 German) [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 3.Crowe A, Cairns HS, Wood S, Rudge CJ, Wood-house CR, Neild GH (1998) Renal transplantation following renal failure due to urological disorders. Nephrol Dial Transplant 13(8):2065–2069. 10.1093/ndt/13.8.2065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Djakovic N, Wagener N, Adams J, Gilfrich C, Haferkamp A, Pfitzenmaier J, Toenshoff B, Schmidt J, Hohenfellner M (2009) Intestinal reconstruction of the lower urinary tract as a prerequisite for renal transplantation. BJU Int 103(11):1555–1560. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08264.x. (Epub 2008 Dec 8. PMID: 19076129) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Blanco M, Medina J, Pamplona M, Miranda N, Gonzalez E, Aguirre JF, Andres A, Leiva O, Morales JM (2009) Outcome of renal transplantation in adult patients with augmented bladders. Transplant Proc 41(6):2382–2384. 10.1016/j.transproceed.2009.06.106. (PMID: 19715926) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kelly WD, Merkel FK, Markland C (1966) Ileal urinary diversion in conjunction with renal homotransplantation. Lancet 1(7431):222–226. 10.1016/s0140-6736(66)90049-3. (PMID: 4159068) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rigamonti W, Capizzi A, Zacchello G, Capizzi V, Zanon GF, Montini G, Murer L, Glazel GP (2005) Kidney transplantation into bladder augmentation or urinary diversion: long-term results. Transplantation 80(10):1435–1440. 10.1097/01.tp.0000174342.19265.f4. (PMID: 16340788) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tunner WS, Whitsell JC 2nd, Rubin AL, Stenzel KH, David DS, Riggio RR, Schwartz GH, Marshall VF (1971) Renal transplantation in children with corrected abnormalities of the lower urinary tract. J Urol 106(1):133–139. 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)61241-2. (PMID: 4935504) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Riedmiller H, Gerharz EW, Köhl U, Weingärtner K (2000) Continent urinary diversion in preparation for renal transplantation: a staged approach. Transplantation 70(12):1713–1717. 10.1097/00007890-200012270-00009. (PMID: 11152102) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Markić D, Oguić R, Krpina K, Gršković A, Vukelić I, Rački S, Ivančić A, Primc D, Španjol J (2019) Kidney transplantation using a colon pouch (Mainz pouch III): a case report. Croat Med J 60(6):545–551. 10.3325/cmj.2019.60.545.PMID:31894920;PMCID:PMC6952892 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Coosemans W, Baert L, Kuypers D, Maes B, Messiaen T, Vanrenterghem Y, Pirenne J (2001) Renal transplantation onto abnormal urinary tract: ileal conduit urinary diversion. Transplant Proc 33(4):2493–2494. 10.1016/s0041-1345(01)02074-7. (PMID: 11406224) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Surange RS, Johnson RW, Tavakoli A, Parrott NR, Riad HN, Campbell BA, Augustine T (2003) Kidney transplantation into an ileal conduit: a single center experience of 59 cases. J Urol 170(5):1727–1730. 10.1097/01.ju.0000092023.39043.67. (PMID: 14532763) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Power RE, O’Malley KJ, Khan MS, Murphy DM, Hickey DP (2000) Renal transplantation in patients with an augmentation cystoplasty. BJU Int 86(1):28–31. 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00705.x. (PMID: 10886078) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wolfe RA, Roys EC, Merion RM (2010) Trends in organ donation and transplantation in the United States, 1999–2008. Am J Transplant 10:961–972 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Veroux M, Grosso G, Corona D, Mistretta A, Giaquinta A, Giuffrida G, Sinagra N, Veroux P (2012) Age is an important predictor of kidney transplantation outcome. Nephrol Dial Transplant 27(4):1663–1671. 10.1093/ndt/gfr524. (Epub 2011 Sep 16. PMID: 21926404) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Aufhauser DD Jr, Peng AW, Murken DR, Concors SJ, Abt PL, Sawinski D, Bloom RD, Reese PP, Levine MH (2018) Impact of prolonged dialysis prior to renal transplantation. Clin Transplant 32(6):e13260. 10.1111/ctr.13260. (Epub 2018 Jun 25. PMID: 29656398; PMCID: PMC6023748) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mattoo TK (2011) Vesicoureteral reflux and reflux nephropathy. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 18(5):348–354. 10.1053/j.ackd.2011.07.006.PMID:21896376;PMCID:PMC3169795 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Srinivasan D, Stoffel JT, Mathur AK, Kapeles S, Bradley K, Sung RS (2016) Long-term outcomes of kidney transplant recipients with bladder dysfunction: a single-center study. Ann Transplant 19(21):222–234. 10.12659/aot.895975. (PMID: 27090659) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hatch DA, Koyle MA, Baskin LS, Zaontz MR, Burns MW, Tarry WF, Barry JM, Belitsky P, Taylor For RJ (2001) Kidney transplantation in children with urinary diversion or bladder augmentation. J Urol 165(6 Pt 2):2265–2268. 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66181-2. (PMID: 11371960) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Warholm C, Berglund J, Andersson J, Tydén G (1999) Renal transplantation in patients with urinary diversion: a case-control study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 14(12):2937–2940. 10.1093/ndt/14.12.2937. (PMID: 10570101) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ergänzungsbericht zum Tätigkeitsbericht nach § 11 Abs. 5 TPG - Externe vergleichende Qualitätssicherung 2019 DSO - Nierentransplantation und Nierenlebendspende https://dso.de/BerichteTransplantationszentren/QS%20Bericht%202019%20Niere.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2023
  • 22.Fontaine E, Gagnadoux MF, Niaudet P, Broyer M, Beurton D (1998) Renal transplantation in children with augmentation cystoplasty: long-term results. J Urol 159(6):2110–2113. 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63287-7. (PMID: 9598551) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Moses KA, Bochner BH, Prabharasuth D, Sfakianos JP, Bernstein M, Herr HW, Dalbagni G (2013) Radical cystectomy and orthotopic urinary reconstruction in patients with bladder cancer after renal transplantation: clinical outcomes and description of technique. Transplant Proc 45(4):1661–1666. 10.1016/j.transproceed.2012.10.050. (PMID: 23726643; PMCID: PMC4167061) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chaykovska L, Deger S, Wille A, Friedersdorff F, Kasper A, Dragun D, Liefeldt L, Miller K, Giessing M, Fuller TF (2009) Kidney transplantation into urinary conduits with ureteroureterostomy between transplant and native ureter: single-center experience. Urology 73(2):380–385. 10.1016/j.urology.2008.07.069. (Epub 2008 Nov 20. PMID: 19022489) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sackett DD, Singh P, Lallas CD (2011) Urological involvement in renal transplantation. Int J Urol 18(3):185–193. 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2010.02707.x. (Epub 2011 Feb 8. PMID: 21299639) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.McGregor T, Bjazevic J, Patel P, Koulack J (2016) Changing of the guard? A glance at the surgical representation in the Canadian renal transplantation community. Can Urol Assoc J 10(1–2):E7–E11. 10.5489/cuaj.3256. (Epub 2016 Jan 14. PMID: 26858788; PMCID: PMC4729576) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Branchereau J (2022) Redefining the urologist’s role in kidney transplantation. World J Urol 40(1):301–302. 10.1007/s00345-020-03520-5. (Epub 2020 Nov 11. PMID: 33175209) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pecoraro A, Li Marzi V, Sessa F, Boissier R, Hevia V, Prudhomme T, Andras I, Breda A, Serni S, Territo A, Campi R, EAU Young Academic Urologists Working Group on Kidney Transplantation (2022) Urologists and kidney transplantation: the first European census. Eur Urol 82(3):336–337. 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.05.032. (Epub 2022 Jun 15. PMID: 35717360) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 111 KB) (111.4KB, docx)

Articles from World Journal of Urology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES